Gerry Adams
Question:1 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the amount of times the Economic Management Council meets. [34293/11]
Ceisteanna — Questions (Resumed)
Economic Management Council
Gerry Adams
Question:2 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the amount of times the Economic Management Council has met since the summer recess. [34294/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:3 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if the Economic Management Council met with representatives of the banks in relation to mortgage interest rates. [34295/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:4 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will provide an update on the staffing and operations of the Economic Management Council. [34387/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:5 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the meeting between the banks and the Economic Management Council. [35753/11]
Joe Higgins
Question:6 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report to Dáil Éireann on the operation of the Economic Management Council. [35841/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:7 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if the Economic Management Council has any plans to meet again with representatives of the banks. [37292/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:8 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if the Economic Management Council has met or will meet with the Governor of the Central Bank of Ireland or the Financial Regulator in relation to the issue of mortgage interest rates. [37293/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:9 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if the Economic Management Council has met with or will meet with the Governor of the Central Bank or the Financial Regulator. [37294/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:10 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will detail all meetings of the Economic Management Council which involved persons from outside of Government or the public service; and the persons involved. [37375/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:11 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the number of times the Economic Management Council met in 2011 and prior to budget 2012. [39753/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 11, inclusive, together.
The Government Economic Managment Council has been established with the status of a Cabinet committee. It has four members: myself, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. A second Secretary General has been appointed in my Department whose responsibilites included managing support for the council and reporting to the Tánaiste on matters relating to the council. Additional support for the council is provided from within the existing resources of my Department, working in close conjunction with staff from the Departments of Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform and Foreign Affairs and Trade.
It is a Cabinet committee and therefore confidentiality of discussions at the Economic Management Council is protected by the Constitution. In line with longstanding practice, it is not appropriate to answer questions about proceedings at the council and the agendas of future meetings.
The council normally meets every week and has met 14 times since the summer recess. In addition, on 9 November, the members of the council met with representatives of the three largest banks to discuss the issue of lending to small and medium enterprises. We also took the opportunity to make the banks aware of the Government's view on the passing on of ECB interest rate reductions to their customers.
I tabled seven of the questions so perhaps I might be allowed some extra time.
Yes.
I refer to the cut in the ECB interest rates which last week showed a reduction of 0.25%. The Bank of Ireland has passed on the cut only partially and Allied Irish Banks has refused to do so. Although the Taoiseach called in the banks to meet with the economic management council they still continue to defy the Government. Given they are supposed to be owned by the taxpayers and that billions of euro of the people's money has been ploughed into them, what will the Taoiseach do about this? Will he act in the interests of the people and introduce legislation?
I am particularly vexed by the public interest directors who are paid enormous salaries and are also paid €3,000 for attending a meeting. Has the Taoiseach confidence in them?
We called in the banks and had a discussion with them about lending policy in general and whether AIB and Bank of Ireland would be in a position to meet the 2011 target of lending €3 billion apiece, €3.5 billion next year and €4 billion in 2013. We also called in Ulster Bank so there were three banks together at the end of that meeting for a discussion on the passing on of the interest rate reduction as confirmed by the ECB. The ECB passed on reductions in interest rate to help people who are under pressure, to prevent banks making a profit on such cases and because it is in the interest of stimulating investment and growth.
Allied Irish Banks passed on the interest rate reduction; the other two did not. Since then there has been a further reduction. The point made at the meeting was that the Government was in full agreement with the regulator that we do not want to see unfair increases put upon mortgage holders who are under pressure. Obviously, this is in everybody's interest. One does not want a situation whereby mortgage holders are severely put upon by the very banks that made serious mistakes in the past.
Following that meeting we contacted the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator to request their opinion on recent developments in regard to mortgage interest rates and the possible policy of the Central Bank in the matter. The Financial Regulator responded to me and indicated it would step up an intensive engagement with the banks on the issue of setting variable interest rates disproportionate to the cost of their funds. This is in addition to the Central Bank ensuring the banks treat their customers fairly.
I also made it clear to the banks that we would call them back in January to discuss an agenda of items in regard to access to credit, lending policy and difficulties being experienced by a whole range of would-be borrowers in business and in SMEs throughout the country. I had indicated that if the Financial Regulator sought change in his powers of authority the Government would respond to that. The regulator replied by way of clarification, stating that the power to exercise close regulatory control over retail interests is not being sought by the Central Bank at this time.
In regard to further ECB interest rate cuts announced on 8 December, the same applies. I welcome the decision of EBS, Permanent TSB and the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation to pass on a further reduction to variable rate customers and would encourage the other banks to follow suit. I reiterate, the reason the ECB announced interest rate reductions was to relieve pressure on hard-pressed mortgage payers, to stimulate growth and investment and that banks would not make a financial killing as a consequence of bad decisions they made.
That is all fair enough. The Taoiseach is appealing to the banks' better feelings. However, that has not worked, certainly not with some of the banks in question. Will he introduce legislation to ensure cuts in interest rates by the European Central Bank are passed on to customers in Bank of Ireland, Allied Irish Banks and so on?
With the Ceann Comhairle's indulgence, I wish to raise another issue. I have my notes from this morning's meeting with the Taoiseach. He has accused me of misrepresenting what he said which I believe is a serious charge. I did not misrepresent what the Taoiseach said. I actually noted what he said.
Did Deputy Adams write it down?
Will Deputy Adams stick to the question, please?
With respect, a Cheann Comhairle——
The Deputy is not making any statements here now. He is out of order as we are on Question Time. On any other issues, he can come to my office and we will see what arrangements can be made to correct records. In the meantime, we are on Question Time and the Deputy should stick to the subject matter.
I will do that, a Cheann Comhairle.
I will restate my questions. Will the Taoiseach introduce legislation to ensure cuts in interest rates by the European Central Bank are passed on to customers here? The banks, into which we have put billions of the people's money are under the taxpayers' control.
Those directors appointed to the banks to look after the public interest are paid enormous amounts of money for doing so. They include former leaders of all the other political parties and are paid €3,000 just to go to a meeting. Does the Taoiseach still have confidence in them?
Deputy Adams can check his notes again. I am not responsible for what he writes down. I am responsible for what I say.
Hear, hear.
I would like to see what he wrote down. The next time we have a private meeting, I will record it officially if he is going to broadcast it like this afterwards.
On a point of order, how is the Taoiseach allowed to respond to that matter when it was already ruled out of order? Can there be a bit of consistency in the application of the rules? It is an outrage.
The passing on of the ECB interest rate reduction is a matter for the Financial Regulator. I wrote to him on behalf of the Government stating if he required further assistance or a change in his regulatory powers, the Government would respond favourably to such a request. I have already read out his reply in which he clarified that at this time he did not seek any change in his regulatory authority. This is not just a case of the Government introducing legislation. It is important it is regulated by the Financial Regulator.
Deputy Adams will be aware that tracker mortgages receive the reduction automatically. The Government introduced a 30% mortgage interest relief for first-time buyers who bought between 2004 and 2008, a commitment in the programme for Government. The Minister for Finance will make further changes arising from the recommendations contained in the Keane report and other matters raised with the Department of Finance since then. It is in everyone's interest that, in so far as the Government can assist, the serious pressure some have with their mortgages is reduced.
For the record, my notes from this morning's meeting say the Taoiseach said this is the wrong meeting to put the Irish case as the focus is on the euro.
I will allow Deputy Adams in after Deputy Martin.
There are questions down about the European issue for later.
The Taoiseach said he would insist on the passing on of ECB interest rate reductions. It was, in fact, the programme for Government that made that commitment.
Sorry, we are on questions on the Economic Management Council.
Yes, we have been on these questions for the past 15 minutes. A recent ISME report on credit made it clear the banks are not doing their job in lending to business. Regarding mortgage holders, it is high time the banks were told they have an obligation to the taxpayer, not just to their shareholders alone. The Bank of Ireland stance is arrogant and thumbing its nose at the Government and the taxpayer.
When the Economic Management Council was established, every journalist in town was told it would be a new and radical way of managing economic decision-making in Cabinet. Last month, we were told it was the driving core of the budget process. Given the number of meetings it has had and that it cleared the budget line by line, does the Taoiseach agree it has failed its first major test? It produced a budget in which all the tough cuts in tax, welfare, education and health were targeted to fall on the poorest sections of society.
Departmental documents on the comprehensive spending review show the Taoiseach and other members of the council were aware of the details of cuts to disadvantaged schools, career guidance and language teaching from 9 September.
Can we stick to Question Time?
It is extraordinary that in that time no member of the Economic Management Council shouted, "Stop".
Deputy Martin, this is Question Time.
It suggests the workings of the Economic Management Council are seriously flawed if it allowed budget decisions through, one of which had to be immediately reversed because of its impact on people with disabilities.
We all agree ECB interest rate reductions should be passed on by the banks. We made that crystal clear to the banks when they attended a meeting in November on this issue. It must be borne in mind the Government has just a 15% stake in Bank of Ireland. Ulster Bank made its position clear in so far as the number of mortgages it has here are concerned. Nonetheless, there was a full and a frank discussion about passing on the interest rate reduction. I intend to call the banks back in again in mid-January. This time there will be a specific list of agenda items to which they will respond in writing before the meeting to ensure a more comprehensive discussion later.
The Economic Management Council is not the Cabinet and was never intended to be. It is, however, a Cabinet sub-committee that is able to deal with a range of issues which can then be presented to the Cabinet for its perusal and decision, if required. If one has to take €3.8 billion out of the economy in 2012 — €2.2 billion in current spending and €1.6 billion in taxation measures — the larger Departments of Health and Social Protection will be the two front-runners in cuts. How many times has Deputy Martin been told of a scandalous waste of money in a section or scheme in a Department which should be abolished or made more effective?
A revolution is happening in the social protection area. For years immemorial, one was paid one's allowance and told to go away. All social protection moneys come from the taxpayer or, as is the case now, borrowed to keep services running. To ensure best value, people's work experience and competencies, along with the job they are seeking, are discussed with them. Jobseekers are encouraged to state what job they want and what contribution they can make instead of simply being given their payment.
Were we not able to deal with the major spending Departments, one would not be able to achieve the savings target I referred to earlier. If one abolished all the smaller Departments, such as Defence, one would not even make up the €3.8 billion required. Savings of up to €600 million in the Department of Social Protection, along with serious reductions in the expenditure by the Department of Health will bring about leaner, more efficient and effective Departments and benefit those availing of their services, be they health service users or jobseekers.
The unemployment rate in this country is entirely unsatisfactory at 14.4% and that is the big challenge for Government in the time ahead. That is where the focus of Government will be with labour activation measures and the Government jobs agenda being announced in January.
The Taoiseach would need to be careful with language and restrain himself. There has been no revolution in social protection.
In its culture.
Counterculture.
The only revolution is that people are being savaged——
I am sorry. This is Question Time.
Labour activation measures have been a feature of the social welfare system for the past two decades. It has never been the case that people just sign on. That has not been the case for many years. What has happened in this budget highlights the flaw in the economic management council. We were told it went through things line by line. The Taoiseach said it had 14 meetings. We know from the comprehensive spending review and the departmental documents behind it——
A question please.
——that the Taoiseach and the members of the council were aware of all these cuts as far back as 9 September, yet no one seemed to see the unfairness of them——
A question please.
——and the impact they would have. Given that the Ministers for Finance, Transport, Tourism and Sport, and Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and others——
A question please.
A Cheann Comhairle, I am trying to ask a question. I have never come across this interference——
It is Question Time and I am going to insist that the Deputy asks a question.
——and I have been in this House a long time.
So have I.
But the Ceann Comhairle tends to have an awful tendency to interrupt people when they are legitimately asking a question.
No, I am just reminding the Deputy that it is Question Time.
It is not on, with the greatest of respect.
It is Question Time. If the Deputy wants to make statements, he cannot make them at Question Time.
I am not making a statement. I am trying to come to a question——
Please stick to the agenda.
——but the Ceann Comhairle has a habit of interfering when he does not like maybe some of what has been said.
Excuse me, please withdraw that remark.
That is the way I interpret it now.
Please withdraw that remark.
I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle, which remark?
That I do not like what is being said.
I withdraw that remark but I am very unhappy with the manner of the interventions.
The Deputy may be unhappy but I am also unhappy with the manner in which the Deputy is trying to conduct Question Time——
I am trying to say that now. I am being very fair and reasonable.
——by continually making ongoing statements. The Deputy should ask a question. He has three questions tabled. Please ask the question.
I am going to ask a question.
If we are having statements, the Deputy can make all the statements he wants.
I witnessed the previous ten to 15 minutes and there was not that kind of intervention.
Yes, there was.
No, there was not.
I asked Deputy Adams and I asked everybody else to please ask a question.
I respectfully suggest that if the Ceann Comhairle let people get on with asking the question, there would not be any of this. I have been here a long time——
The Deputy is not asking questions; he is making statements. That is what I am pointing out.
That is the Ceann Comhairle's comment.
Other Deputies want to come in. Deputy Higgins has a question.
I will allow other Members in. I have tabled questions as the leader of the Fianna Fáil Party.
We are 20 minutes on these questions.
We have 400,000 people who elected us and I am entitled to ask the questions.
The party has only 19 seats though.
I am entitled to ask the questions.
Please ask a question.
It is the Dáil and there should be no need for this undermining of the attempt to ask the questions.
As long as I am in the Chair, I will continue to apply the rules——
Of course, the Ceann Comhairle will. I have no doubt about that.
——and I expect the Deputy to abide by the rules the same as everybody else.
I have, and I have been extremely fair and reasonable in so doing.
Does the Taoiseach agree the economic management council has undermined the ability of the Cabinet to work together on the budget? The statements of the Ministers for Finance, Transport, Tourism and Sport, and Communications, Energy and Natural Resources basically sent shots across the bow of other Cabinet colleagues. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport said Labour Party Ministers decided the welfare cuts. Does the Taoiseach not agree that this is a direct breach of collective Cabinet responsibility? What, if anything, will he do about that?
I agree with the Deputy that the decisions taken in the budget are the collective responsibility of the Cabinet. The economic management council is not the Cabinet. The Deputy will be aware that the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform announced a comprehensive expenditure review across all Departments very early on in the summer with Ministers to respond to him by the end of September. The submissions were further analysed and dealt with. The decisions taken are Cabinet decisions taken collectively and they affect every single Department right down the line. No section of any Department, with very few exceptions, has been left untouched in respect of the expenditure review assessment.
The economic management council is not the Cabinet. It can deal with issues and bring them before Cabinet for it to decide to accept or whatever but the decisions taken are the collective responsibility of all the members around the table. That has not changed and will not change.
What about the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport's comments?
People may read into anybody's comments what they like.
But he said the Labour Party did the welfare cuts.
The position is that the reductions in any individual Department are all collectively accepted by the Government and there is no Department that did not have reductions applied to them in some area.
Could I ask the Taoiseach to be forthcoming on the real agenda and purpose of the economic management council? The membership is the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, who are the leaders of the Fine Gael and Labour parties, respectively, the Minister for Finance from the Fine Gael Party and the alternate Minister for Finance from the Labour Party. Is this not really a kind of Stalinist politburo inside the Cabinet——
The Deputy has moved to the right hand wing of the Chamber instead of the left hand wing.
——to dictate to the Cabinet the diktats from the IMF-EU, particularly in regard to austerity, to maintain the bondholders and bankers of Europe, which, in turn, are dictated to the hapless backbenchers of both parties?
Is the Deputy asking a question?
I have asked two questions.
I am sorry.
Perhaps this is an Irish version of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse doling out not so much war and pestilence, but savage austerity for our people.
I refer to Cabinet confidentiality as it applies to the economic management council. The original four horsemen of mythology came out of a book of scrolls sealed with seven seals, perhaps in anticipation of Cabinet confidentiality. How can there be Cabinet confidentiality when the Taoiseach meets a group of bankers? Does that not cease to be a Government meeting bound by confidentiality, especially when the Taoiseach is meeting agents of the organisations that were up to their necks in bringing about the collapse of this economy along with others? Is it not, therefore, a nonsense to insist on Cabinet confidentiality to deny the Dáil a full account of what happens at the economic management council in regard to strategy for the economy going into the future?
The answer to the Deputy's first question is that the economic management council is not a Stalinist politburo.
It is acting like one though.
I am glad to see the Deputy on that side of the Chamber than over here for whatever reason he has changed. I do not know whether he cannot stick the heat over there.
It is to keep the Taoiseach on his toes.
The horsemen Deputy Higgins spoke of are as mythical as the battle of Moytura.
The Government is riding roughshod over the Irish people. That is why the reference is appropriate.
The economic management council, as I said in reply to Deputy Martin, is not the Cabinet but it is entitled, as a committee, to meet the chief executive officers of the banks, either collectively or individually, because it is in the interest of the consumer that the council should make Government policy clearly and plainly known to people in those positions and it has done so. For instance, the council might meet the Financial Regulator or the Governor of the Central Bank in regard to issues that are clearly of national importance.
Why the secrecy?
It is not any kind of Stalinist organisation. It is a case of being able to streamline a range of issues before they get to Cabinet.
What is the secrecy about?
We are not sitting around for hours on end doing nothing. One puts one's agenda there and issues that can be dealt with and that can be, at least, focused on can then come to Cabinet for decision in a professional and competent way.
Does the Taoiseach intend via the council to take action against EBS, which is a State owned bank, to deal with the appalling situation where 300 of its workforce have had a month's pay, worth €2,500, taken off them while managers and executives of that bank are, scandalously, not having a penny taken off their high salaries or incomes? This is an absolute scandal. This was effectively——
Thank you, Deputy.
——part of their annual salary and these workers have lost, at two days notice and just before Christmas, €2,500 each on average.
That is an entirely separate question.
Will the Taoiseach, via the economic management council, tell the EBS to give those workers their money back and take the money off the top earners in the EBS instead?
I do not have the details of that. I am sure the representatives of the workers in the EBS will be taking up their case with the management. It is an issue the Deputy could raise as an item of topical interest in the House if the Ceann Comhairle were to allow it.
I have done.
Freedom of Information
Micheál Martin
Question:12 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has reviewed the policy implications of decisions by him on freedom of information requests since the matter was last discussed in Dáil Éireann; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34388/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:13 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will provide an update of decisions he has made on freedom of information requests since the issue was last discussed in Dáil Éireann. [35963/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 12 and 13 together.
The functions relating to the Freedom of Information Act are carried out in my Department by statutorily designated officials, as envisaged in the Act. These officials follow the guidelines set out in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform's decision makers manual and there are no plans to change this process. As I have stated previously in the House, the statutory framework relating to freedom of information is constructed in such a way as to keep the decision making process at arm's length from the political head of the Department. Accordingly, I have no role in regard to the processing of freedom of information requests.
My Department received a total of 19 freedom of information requests since the matter was last discussed in the Dáil in September. Twelve requests were granted or part-granted, in three cases the Department held no records and four requests are being processed.
The reason I asked this question is that the Taoiseach came to office promising a more open freedom of information system but, from my experience, he has done the opposite. Last March the Taoiseach said after a meeting in Brussels that he had fought hard to counter a proposal to destroy our corporation tax and he talked about how tough he had been defending the nation. At the time, we asked to see the proposal he was speaking of and he refused to publish it. He may recall that President Van Rompuy produced a compromise.
The Taoiseach admitted in the House that there was documentation about this but he said his account of it was all we could get. We then made the freedom of information request. The Taoiseach invoked a series of extreme defences to withhold it, and he has done the same on appeal. One of the major issues arising is the absurd situation that the Taoiseach has now claimed that European rules prevent him from releasing the documentation and that its release would damage the Government's international relations. We checked this with the European Council——
A question, please.
——and it said it was up to the national Government to release the document and that it would encourage the national Government to do so.
I put it to the Taoiseach that this is a ridiculous situation. His position seems to be that he describes the document as okay but that having people see it would destroy our relations with other states. That is the response we got and it is why I tabled the question, "To ask the Taoiseach if he has reviewed the policy implications of decisions by him on freedom of information requests since the matter was last discussed in Dáil Éireann; and if he will make a statement on the matter." It should be changed and I ask the Taoiseach whether he will change it.
Deputy Martin submitted an FOI request relating to briefing material prepared in advance of the European Council meeting in March. That request was part-granted, as I understand it, by the freedom of information officer. On appeal by Deputy Martin, the request was considered by somebody of high rank in the Department, as provided for in the Freedom of Information Act. I understand that two further documents were released, with minor redactions. The Deputy has since appealed that request to the Information Commissioner, again as is provided for in the Freedom of Information Act, in respect of which I have no connection whatsoever. That appeal is currently being processed by her.
Two other requests were received from the Fianna Fáil research office. The first, some time ago, related to the pensions levy. The second, in July, related to contacts with the Ceann Comhairle's office regarding the disallowance or transfer of parliamentary questions. Both were part-granted and were answered within the freedom of information timeframe, as set out.
I am aware a number of Departments have released the replies to freedom of information requests on their websites, although it is also clear that most complaints in regard to freedom of information relate not to the process of obtaining information but to the restrictions which apply to the information that can be released. This is why it is a commitment in the programme for Government to restore the Freedom of Information Acts to what they were prior to 2003 and to extend their remit to additional public bodies. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform is working on that.
On a supplementary question, this relates to the offer that President Van Rompuy made at that March meeting. The situation is that the European Council has said it would encourage the Government, as a national Government, to release that document. The Taoiseach has admitted the document is in existence yet he is refusing to release it. Any claim to transform freedom of information and make it better lacks credibility if the Taoiseach is not prepared, nine months on, to release that document and give the truth of what happened. All I am asking for is the document, the existence of which the Taoiseach has admitted. We have gone all over the houses to try to get a copy of it and many journalists have tried to get a copy of it. The Taoiseach has been very reticent and has been, if one likes, protecting the document from publication.
It is a ridiculous situation. The Taoiseach has not answered the question I have tabled. In the light of our experience, does the Taoiseach not agree that a document like that should be released to the public?
As I said, Deputy Martin has appealed this to Information Commissioner and that office has completely independent authority in this regard. I have no function at all in regard to interfering in any way with the Freedom of Information Acts, as they are set down. There is a Government commitment to change the Act back to what it was prior to 2003, which would make it far more flexible and open, and also to extend its remit to other public bodies. We will do that and the Minister of Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, is working on it. It is for the Information Commissioner to make her decision. I have no hand, act or part in influencing that in any way.
The Government is committed, or at least it stated a commitment, to restore the Act to its status before 2003 and to extend its remit to other public bodies, and the Taoiseach has just repeated that commitment. Will he update us on the progress that has been made thus far in introducing legislation to broaden the remit of the Act? Will he tell us the bodies to which the remit of the Act will apply? When does he expect legislation to come forward? Is the progress of this legislation being delayed because of the relationship with the demands and requirements of the EU-IMF?
It is a commitment of Government to restore the Act to what it was prior to 2003 and to extend its remit further than it is at present. I understand from the Minister, Deputy Howlin, that he would expect to be able to bring a legislative measure to the House in the new year. Clearly, we have had discussions about the legislative programme from September until the end of this year, which was very packed because of the timeline requirements on a number of pieces of legislation, as demanded under the troika agreement.
The programme for Government provides that the Government will legislate to restore the Act to what it was before 2003 and to extend its remit to other public bodies, including the administrative side of the Garda Síochána, subject to security exceptions. It also proposes to extend freedom of information and the Ombudsman Act to ensure that all statutory bodies, and all bodies significantly funded from the public purse, are covered. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has embarked on preparatory work to implement the commitments contained in the programme. When this is completed, the Minister will bring his proposals before Government. These proposals will include consideration of the position in regard to the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority, NAMA and the NTMA. There are no proposals at present to bring the nationalised or partly nationalised banking sector within the Freedom of Information Act.
Programmes for Government
Micheál Martin
Question:14 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the staffing and costs of the unit in his Department charged with overseeing the implementation of the programme for Government. [35997/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:15 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will detail any publications regarding the implementation of the programme for Government which will be produced in the coming year. [35998/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:16 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the publications he plans to produce regarding the progress that the Government has made in the implementation of the programme for Government. [38609/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 14 to 16, inclusive, together.
As Deputies will be aware, a new programme for Government office has been established in my Department. Two whole-time staff have been assigned to the office from within existing Department resources. This staff, comprising an assistant principal officer and a higher executive officer, has a total annual salary cost of €144,266.27, including employers' PRSI. The office is currently in the process of developing structures which will allow it to monitor programme implementation and to report to me and to the Cabinet on progress across all Departments.
As part of that structure, my Department will ensure that departmental strategy statements for the period 2011-14 fully reflect commitments in the programme for Government, together with the EU-IMF programme and the comprehensive expenditure review. Departments will, as part of the strategy statement process, publish annual output statements, which will quantify and report on progress in implementing the programme and outline the commitments for the Department for the year ahead. I also envisage that the Government's first annual progress report on the programme for Government will be made available on my Department's website in March of next year.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply.
The Taoiseach is saying that publication of the first report on the programme for Government that will be compiled by the staff will be in March next. Given that there have been fairly substantial breaches of commitments made in the programme for Government, on disability, health, education, lone parents and schools with disadvantage, is it only fair and reasonable to have an earlier reiteration of the programme for Government and perhaps a report card before the close of this year?
The Taoiseach stated in an appearance earlier in the year on "The Late Late Show" that there would be a report card for every Minister which he would publish. He kind of resiled from that subsequently. The Taoiseach is smiling now but I actually went back over it.
I did not say I would publish them.
The Taoiseach did. I went over the interview. The Taoiseach was very serious in his interview on "The Late Late Show". He stated there would be a report card on every Minister and given his commitment to transparency, that would seem to suggest that he would publish it. Anything short of that would be——
Maybe Deputy Martin could FOI it.
——not in keeping with the Taoiseach's commitment to transparency.
In terms of the programme for Government, there have been many decisions taken in the budget and prior to the budget, both on economic issues and on education, welfare and health, where there have been clear breaches. Of course, the most immediate one is that on upward-only rent reviews, which is a clear commitment in the programme for Government and which the Minister for Finance has buried in the budget and stated will not happen, much to the disgust and anger of many retailers across the country. There is a need to review and update the programme for Government in the light of the commitments that cannot and will not be delivered.
I have here a list of issues that have been dealt with under the programme for Government. It is too long to read out to Deputy Martin. I will send Deputy Martin a copy.
There are 26 elements of the programme for Government covered under the most recent budget. They range from the highest transparency in respect of NAMA with the Minister for Finance to establish the advisory group to advise him on NAMA strategy and his capacity to deliver on that strategy, to the commitment to allow a rebate in respect of farm diesel in regard to carbon tax, with a double income tax deduction for that. There are 26 elements of the programme for Government dealt with in the most recent budget.
It is not only about having a budget to implement issues in the programme for Government. The programme for Government is something on which we will deliver to the maximum extent possible.
I must state quite openly that we genuinely believed it would be possible to legislate in respect of upward-only rent reviews but the clear evidence in respect of this being constitutionally impossible was there from the legal advice of the former Attorney General and other senior counsel opinion besides, to the effect one would end up having to compensate landlords if one was to introduce such legislation. Following discussions with the Minister for Finance, NAMA has responded by indicating it will deal with the properties in its portfolio in respect of upward-only rent reviews.
This is an issue of considerable concern to retailers. I spoke to somebody yesterday who is paying three times the rent of the next-door tenant — this is always difficult. The de facto position on the ground in many cases is that rents have been reviewed downward by virtue of circumstance. Clearly, with retailers under pressure from rates and a flat indigenous economy, the position has become very much more difficult. From that point of view, quite a sizeable number of rents have been renegotiated downwards where the other situation applied.
I say to Deputy Martin quite openly that it has been impossible to deliver on the commitment that we thought genuinely we could do by putting it into the programme for Government. There is a constitutional barrier we could not cross but we are making other arrangements in respect of some retail outlets — those in NAMA — and the Minister is considering what else can be done. However, there are 26 elements in the recent budget.
That is a clear commitment that the Taoiseach is now saying cannot be fulfilled because of the constitutional barrier. He would have been told that in advance of the formation of the Government. He was told there was a constitutional barrier. Everybody in the House was told there was a constitutional barrier as per the legal advice of the former Attorney General, and yet the Taoiseach decided to go ahead and put it into the programme for Government and make all sorts of election commitments promising people this would happen. There were Bills brought to the House etc.
There is no excuse for putting something in when the Taoiseach knew full well what the answer would be ultimately. He really raised the hopes of people and paralysed the situation for a good nine months, and then was forced in the budget to admit the position.
What are the implications of that in terms of other commitments in the programme for Government? That is what I am getting at. We need an honest review of the programme for Government in terms of what is possible and when.
The situation is not exactly as Deputy Martin describes it. Obviously, my party was not in government before the election and therefore did not have at its disposal the formal legal advice from the Attorney General. Deputy Martin did though, if he requested it.
We did.
Obviously, he could have said what was the legal advice available.
March next will be an appropriate time to have an annual review of the performance of Government in so far as the commitments in the programme for Government being fulfilled are concerned. It is quite sizeable, more sizeable than I had considered.
As I stated, there are 26 clear commitments in the programme that are now delivered on in this budget. This programme is for a full Government term. Deputy Martin can take it from me that one of my clear priorities is that Ministers deliver in so far as politically and constitutionally possible on the commitments that are in the programme for Government. I hope to drive Ministers on to that. We have set the ceilings for Departments for the times ahead. Clearly, there has been a great deal of work done in respect of MOUs and troika legislation for this session. Next year we must focus, obviously, on the question of Europe, but also on the clear challenge to the country in the context of employment, job creation, labour activation measures, investment opportunities etc. Those will be our clear priorities to provide work.
All of these matters have a bearing on the commitments in the programme for Government. I look forward to saying to Ministers that they have a big challenge between now and March, I want to see X, X and X delivered in their Departments and to get on with it, and if there is a reason they cannot deliver it, then to tell me why.
On a number of occasions the Taoiseach has spoken about the need for open government. Years before he became leader of his party, I remember him speaking and writing about the reform of this institution and I listened and read intently what he was saying.
On this issue of the programme for Government, the two parties in government stood on separate manifestos which made clear commitments and they were elected on those very clear commitments. They then put forward the programme for Government. I think the Taoiseach should consider, well in advance of March, publishing how he sees the implementation of that programme.
Our job is to scrutinise the Government. I do not believe in opposition for the sake of opposition. We should be constructive in how we go about it. We are able to read the programme for Government and then to state the Government promised this but it did that, and it gets into that sort of ping-pong across this Chamber.
Maybe there are reasons the Taoiseach did that. Maybe there are reasons the Taoiseach could not do some of the things he committed to doing. It would be useful and constructive if the Taoiseach said that. On welfare, health and education, he did not do what he promised to do. On his 100th day in government, he said the Government would not raise taxes or cut welfare, but it did so. The political choices of the Government, as opposed to those that might not be possible, are what are marking it out. The poorest, most vulnerable and disadvantaged are bearing the brunt of the austerity measures.
I listened to what the Taoiseach said about bringing this measure forward in March. I appeal to him to do so. A good way to mark the new year may be to come forward with some sort of review of how the programme for Government has been implemented.
No doubt the Deputy will keep me focused on this. This morning I gave a briefing on the meeting at the weekend, yet the Deputy tells me I did not raise something I did.
I reported to the Dáil what the Taoiseach spoke about this morning.
This is the third time the Taoiseach has raised this argument.
He writes down his own notes, which he is perfectly entitled to do and for which I am not responsible. I said to Deputy Martin that the budget dealt with 26 issues, ranging from NAMA to carbon taxation on diesel for the agricultural sector. In the labour market policy in regard to access to higher education for the unemployed and the 30,000 additional training places across education and training systems, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, has announced that, as a consequence of the budget, places, including in the education and training sector and especially for those on the live register for 12 months or more, will be prioritised in 2012. He also announced an allocation of €20 million for a new labour market activation fund, which we will deal with in January.
In preparation for 2013, we said we would review progress on deficit reduction and draw up a plan that would achieve the objective of reaching the 3% of GDP target by 2015. As part of its fiscal strategy, the Government will keep the corporate tax rate at 12.5%. That has been set out clearly again in the budget. We said we would maintain the rates of income tax, together with bands and credits. That has been delivered on. There is no increase in the standard rate of 10.75% in respect of employer's PRSI. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, made that perfectly clear in his speech.
We said we would reduce, cap or abolish property tax reliefs and other tax shelters which benefit very high income earners. Reliefs in section 23-type investments will not be terminated or otherwise restricted for investors with an annual gross income under €100,000. I refer to the teachers, gardaí or public servants who invested in bits and pieces of property, collectively or individually. They are at the greatest risk of insolvency. We dealt with that.
We said we would implement a minimum effective tax rate of 30% for very high earners. The Minister for Finance dealt with that. We said we would limit the top rate of VAT to 23%. We said we would review the universal social charge, exempting 330,000 people, thereby assisting more people to move into the labour market. We said we would ensure tax exiles would make a fair contribution to the Exchequer. As Deputy Adams is aware, the Minister announced the abolition of the citizenship element of the condition for payment of the domicile levy to ensure tax exiles cannot avoid the levy by renouncing their citizenship.
There was a range of other measures. We announced that access to primary care without fees would be extended in the second year to claimants of free drugs under the high-tech drugs scheme, at a cost of €15 million. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, announced that €15 million will fund access to primary care without fees to claimants of free drugs under the long-term illness scheme.
We ring-fenced €35 million annually from the health budget to develop community mental health teams and services with a view to implementing A Vision for Change. We also said we would increase mortgage interest relief for first-time buyers who bought between 2004 and 2008 to 30% from the current sliding scale of 20% to 25%. The Minister for Finance announced that in the budget.
These are commitments entered into in the programme for Government and reflected in Government decisions. They are all in the interest of balance and fairness in protecting those who are vulnerable and making those on higher incomes pay more. In all other areas, they are to improve the efficiency of governance so people can focus on job opportunities, careers and getting back to work.
European Council Meetings
Gerry Adams
Question:17 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he has any plans to meet with the new Spanish Prime Minister. [37289/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:18 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will detail the nature and content of all documents regarding the reform of the EU and the eurozone which he has circulated to other Heads of State or Government since March. [37366/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:19 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will provide an update on his discussions with President Van Rompuy. [37367/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:20 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if it is his intention to publish his proposals for reform of the EU and eurozone in advance of 9 December. [37368/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:21 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will provide an update on preparations for the next EU Council meeting. [37369/11]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:22 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if there has been further progress in his attempts to meet President Sarkozy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37393/11]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:23 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach the agenda for the meeting of EU leaders on 9 December 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37394/11]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:24 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he raised the question of protecting democracy in Europe in the context of proposed treaty changes at the meeting of EU leaders on 9 December 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37395/11]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:25 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he raised the contrasting approaches and outcomes of Iceland’s methods of dealing with the economic crisis as against those being pursued in the eurozone at the meeting of EU leaders on 9 December 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37396/11]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:26 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if tax harmonisation was part of the treaty changes envisaged for the EU at the meeting of EU leaders on 9 December 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37397/11]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:27 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he raised the issue of the mandate and role of the ECB within the eurozone at the meeting of EU leaders on 9 December 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37398/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:28 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach his priorities at the next EU Council meeting on 9 December. [38440/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:29 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he has been in contact with the President of France or the German Chancellor in relation to the propositions they have agreed for the modification of the EU treaties. [38441/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:30 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the issues that he prioritised at the EU summit meeting on 9 December 2011. [38564/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:31 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if the issue of changes to the operation of the EFSF was discussed at the EU summit meeting on 9 December 2011; and his approach to this issue. [38565/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:32 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if proposals for treaty change were discussed at the EU summit on 9 December 2011. [38566/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:33 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the approach that he took to proposals for treaty change at the EU summit meeting on 9 December 2011. [38567/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:34 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if the issue of fiscal discipline was discussed at the EU summit on 9 December 2011; and the approach he will take on that issue. [38568/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:35 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if the role of the ECB within the eurozone was discussed at the EU summit on 9 December 2011; and the approach that he adopted on that issue. [38569/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:36 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the contacts he had with Chancellor Merkel or President Sarkozy in advance of the EU summit meeting on 9 December 2011. [38570/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:37 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the contacts the Government has had with the President of the EU Council, Mr. Hermann Van Rompuy, on the issue of treaty change in advance of the EU summit on 9 December 2011. [38571/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:38 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the visits abroad he has planned in the time ahead. [38572/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:39 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the bilateral meetings with other leaders he has planned in the time ahead. [38573/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:40 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he attended any bilaterals at the Council meeting of 9 December; the issues that were discussed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39755/11]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:41 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he has discussed the Irish budget 2012 with his counterparts at the European summit meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39782/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 17 to 41, inclusive, together.
I attended the European Council in Brussels on 8 and 9 December. As I will be making a statement to the House tomorrow, I will confine myself to some brief remarks about the meetings.
Discussions at the Council were dominated by the overall economic circumstances in Europe with a particular view to overcoming the crisis currently facing the euro area, including President Van Rompuy's interim report on strengthened economic governance in the euro area, including the possibility of limited treaty change. We made important progress, both on firewalls and budget discipline, two key elements of the package for Ireland that I had highlighted ahead of the meeting. We agreed to bring forward the entry into force of the European Stability Mechanism, ESM, to July 2012 and to reassess the overall ceiling of the EFSF and ESM of €500 billion in March 2012.
The Council agreed that the requirement for private sector involvement, PSI, be removed from the draft ESM treaty. This was one of the specific issues I raised with President Van Rompuy and Chancellor Merkel in advance of last week's meeting, and I am pleased that it has now been agreed. This is very good news for countries such as Ireland, which are trying to get back to the financial markets at as early a stage as possible.
To further increase the economic firepower available, euro area member states are to consider, and confirm within ten days, that they will provide up to €200 billion in bilateral loans to the IMF. We are also looking forward to contributions from the international community.
While the question of the ECB's mandate did not arise, I very much welcome its recent decision to make unlimited three-year loans to Europe's banks at low interest rates. This should have a real impact in moving us beyond the current crisis phase.
On economic governance, we reached a political agreement to strengthen our rules to ensure greater stability in the eurozone, building on the Stability and Growth Pact. Euro area member states are now committed, as a rule, not to run structural deficits above 0.5% of GDP, and will write such a provision into their national laws. A member state in breach, in partnership with the Commission, will have to engage in a process to get back on track within a given timeframe. The significant progress being made by Ireland through implementation of its programme was again recognised by partners.
In my contribution, I set out for colleagues the uniquely onerous burden the Irish people are carrying as a result of the steps we have taken to recapitalise our banks. Specifically, I asked at the Council meeting that facilities that now exist — for example, through the EFSF — be made available to assist in making this burden more manageable. Colleagues gave me a receptive hearing and, together with the Minister for Finance, I will be pursuing the issue in the period ahead. I am confident we will be able to make positive progress in a way that makes a real difference for Ireland.
What we achieved last week was a political agreement. Work will now be taken forward on how to give it legal effect. I am, of course, disappointed that it did not prove possible to reach agreement on a way forward for all 27 parties. I regret that certain member states will be outside the new arrangements and that we must now proceed by way of an intergovernmental treaty outside the EU treaties.
There is a great deal of complex legal and technical detail to be filled out by March, when we will return to the matter. We will study the legal implications of what has been agreed very carefully, including whether a referendum will be necessary in Ireland. For now, it is simply too soon to say. However, the House can be assured we will do whatever is required to ensure that Ireland can ratify the new agreement.
For the reassurance of the House, I can confirm that last week's political agreement does not include any provision on corporation tax. The position in that regard and the Government's firm position remain unchanged.
The European Council tracked progress under the Euro Plus Pact in which 23 member states, including Ireland, participate. The meeting also followed-up on the issue of energy, last discussed by the European Council in February of this year. In addition, enlargement issues featured, and the signature of the Croatian accession treaty took place in the margins of the meeting. The European Council also agreed conclusions on Iran, Syria and Afghanistan.
I have on several occasions outlined for the House how these meetings are prepared. President Van Rompuy circulates the proposed agenda and draft conclusions are prepared. These are generally discussed in several fora, both political and official, ahead of the meeting proper, and Ireland engages very actively as part of the process, sometimes orally at meetings and sometimes by way of written comments circulated to all member states. Ireland is well represented at these preparatory meetings and our views are known and understood.
In addition, ahead of last week's meeting I wrote to President Van Rompuy to outline a number of concerns for this country. I developed those points during my interventions at the European Council meeting. I also spoke to him and to the UK Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, prior to leaving for Brussels. As the House will be aware, I also met Chancellor Merkel on 16 November, ahead of last week's meeting. I also ensured that the President of the Commission, Mr. Barroso, was fully briefed.
With regard to my future travel plans, I will attend the European Council meetings in March, June, October and December of next year and any other meetings arranged in the interim. Work is ongoing between my officials and those of French President Sarkozy to arrange a mutually convenient date on which to meet in the new year.
I had an opportunity to meet the Prime Minister-elect of Spain, Mariano Rajoy, at the EPP meeting which took place last week in Marseilles ahead of the European Council. I congratulated him on his election and indicated that I look forward to working with him in the future. On the basis of substantive business interests, I will also evaluate carefully the need for any further travel plans as we begin our work in 2012.
Finally, Iceland is not a member of the euro or the European Union and, therefore, its economic situation did not arise at the recent meeting.
As just over 90 seconds remain, I ask Deputies to put short supplementary questions to the Taoiseach and we will try to get a reply.
I have tabled 13 questions and I do not consider this to be an adequate response to them. My first question pertained to the peace process in the Basque country and the majority of the remaining questions concerned the summit. We develop working relationships as we come to know the people with whom we work. I took note of what I understood the Taoiseach to say this morning in response to my questions about the letter——
Deputy, please.
——he received from Mr. Van Rompuy. The note that I——
Sorry Deputy, that does not relate to your original questions.
The Taoiseach has revisited this issue three or four times.
I am going to have to call time. The other Deputies will not get a chance to ask their supplementary questions.
I tabled 13 questions.
I know that but I cannot do anything about it.
Can we revert to them?
No——
How do we straighten out this issue when the Taoiseach accuses me of misrepresenting——
The Deputy has to ask a supplementary question relating to his original question on foot of the reply given by the Taoiseach. This is Question Time and the rules apply to everybody.
I am allowed to set out the context and I tabled 13 questions. Why on earth would I bother to put down 13 questions if I am not going to be allowed the opportunity to——
The Deputy did not table questions in relation to this morning's meeting.
With respect, I asked specifically about the letter to Mr. Van Rompuy.
That is not about this morning's meeting.
I know but we discussed it this morning.
I cannot deal with this morning's meeting.
The Taoiseach stated that I misrepresented what he said but I did not misrepresent him.
The Deputy can deal with that matter in a separate way but other Deputies also want to ask supplementary questions.
I am under duress.
Deputy Martin tabled five parliamentary questions and Deputy Boyd Barrett tabled seven.
I ask the Taoiseach, in any upcoming meetings with the Spanish Prime Minister, to raise the issue of the fledgling peace process in the Basque country and request that he follow the example of dialogue set here in order to bring a resolution to the issues inherent in that conflict.
It is unfortunate that as a result of the way Question Time has panned out we have no opportunity to follow up on the 25 parliamentary questions we asked.
I agree.
Perhaps we should change Standing Orders to allow a mechanism for resubmitting them for next week.
Tomorrow.
We will have some chance tomorrow. I ask the Taoiseach to explain clearly to the House why he signed up for a deal, the full implications of which he had not studied. Did he raise the issue of Irish bank debt? I understand he sought a commitment from European Heads of State to the effect that there would be no private sector restructuring of sovereign debt but the proposal appears to involve all debt, including Irish bank debt. The letter he sent to Mr. Van Rompuy asks that Irish debt be re-engineered, with the objective of reducing interest rates and lengthening the timeframe for repayment. Has the Taoiseach given any consideration to having elements of that debt waived or put to one side given the extraordinary steps the ECB and EU institutions have asked Ireland to take to protect the eurozone in advance of the establishment of the European facilities?
It is sovereign debt.
Why did he agree to push ahead without the British Government on board? Did he not see an opportunity to support the British in terms of not needing another treaty? That was our position before the summit. He stated in the Dáil on numerous occasions that he did not think a new treaty was needed because we could do a lot within existing treaties. The fiscal rules do not go to the core of solving the eurozone crisis. Re-financing sovereign debt is the real question and the summit has failed to deal with that.
The Taoiseach rightly condemned Fianna Fáil for crashing our economy and forcing us into the hands of the EU-IMF troika but does he not agree that the proposed deal will institutionalise what he rightly describes as the loss of our economic sovereignty? We will lose democratic control over our economic affairs for perpetuity. There will be centralised, Stalinist control by the European Commission and the ECB over national economies and ordinary people will be disenfranchised.
Was there any discussion about the summit being the umpteenth attempt to come up with some sort of crisis resolution mechanism? Days, if not hours, after the conclusion of every previous summit the solutions began to unravel because the beloved markets decided they would not work. The bottom line problem underlying this pattern is that the austerity programme is crippling growth and even the markets realise a solution will not be found while the European economy is contracting. This proposal will set in stone an economic austerity agenda which will have the same effect.
Was any mention made of the contrasting fate of Iceland? I do not suggest that Iceland is perfect but it took a different response to the crisis and even the IMF praised its decision to allow its banks to fail. It did not reduce expenditure on the welfare state——
It did.
——and it imposed capital controls to prevent money from fleeing the country. As a result, its economy is now recovering. It is on the path to recovery after doing the exact opposite of what Europe is demanding from Ireland. Was there any discussion on the need to find a radically different way of dealing with this crisis?
At the meeting in Marseilles, the person sitting next to me was——
The janitor.
——the new Spanish Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, who is to take up office on 20 December. As I do not speak Spanish and he does not speak English we did not get an opportunity to discuss the fledgling peace process in the Basque country but I will be happy to raise the issue with him. When I next have an opportunity to meet him he will have been duly appointed as Spanish Prime Minister.
In respect of PSI, the issue is to remove PSI from the draft ESM facility. We take the view that such a provision would be counterproductive for a country such as Ireland, which will emerge from a programme, as it would display a lack of confidence by would-be investors in the country. What I was talking about here was not a write-down of sovereign debt but a reconstruction of the bank situation with regard to the recapitalisation, which had taken place at very high interest rates, and an attempt to get that level of bank debt into the facilities that now exist with lower interest rates and longer repayment periods, which would be of great benefit to the Irish taxpayer.
I did suggest at the meeting, if the truth be known, when Prime Minister Cameron made his comments about a specific protocol for the protection of financial services in London, that perhaps the politicians should pause and discuss whether a compromise could be reached in that political impasse. Essentially, what the British Prime Minister seemed to be saying was that he would give consent to changes in the eurozone in exchange for a return to unanimity in respect of certain matters to do with financial services in London. Obviously, that was not achieved, and the 26 countries will move on.
I am due to speak to the Prime Minister this evening. As I said before, after and during the meeting, it is important from the point of view of this country that our nearest neighbour and largest trading partner, which came to our assistance with regard to bailout moneys——
A Deputy
It bailed out its own banks.
——will continue to be central to the European Union and the Single Market, of which the Prime Minister is such an advocate.
With regard to the question asked by Deputy Boyd Barrett, there was no discussion about Iceland, which is not in the European Union nor in the eurozone.
Neither are the 26 now.
That is not true.
Not according to Nicolas Sarkozy.
There was no discussion about it. It was not the treaty that caused the problem here. It was caused by reckless government and reckless banks, and until we achieve a situation in which that can never happen again and order is restored to our public finances, we are not going to have the engine of growth and development that we all want, whereby jobs can be created. It was a number of summits ago that decisions were taken, in respect of Greece in particular, about bailout funds and increased leveraging of the EFSF, which did not actually happen. The Deputy is right in stating that markets have no confidence in that. That is why, in this case, the focus was entirely on the crisis within the eurozone. I am glad, at least, that the decisions taken by the heads of Government are reflected in the introduction of the ESM, minus the private sector involvement, the firewalls in respect of the ESF, the ESM and bilateral loans to the IMF, and the extra unlimited facilities available to banks from the ECB at a low interest rate. When I rang the former president of the ECB, Mr. Trichet, about this in March or April, his view was that the ECB would not extend loans to banks or countries at low interest rates but that they would continue at an emergency level only. That has now changed. The signals from Mr. Draghi are that if the political process achieves clarity and decisiveness about what it wants to do about the eurozone and the euro, the ECB, in respect of its independence and its integrity, will consider that from the point of view of whatever decision it wants to make.
Until we get to a point at which the engine of our own economy is revamped, we will not be able to provide the growth in our economy — and therefore the job opportunities — that we want to.
The Government is killing it with austerity.
I would like to see pension funds and others invest here. We are told there are walls of money for investment, under proper conditions, in infrastructure and job opportunities in Ireland. That is why we have renegotiated with the troika elements of what we can do for investment. For example, in respect of the sale of State assets, the troika wanted all of that money to be used for debt reduction only, but they are now prepared to talk on a case-by-case basis about investment in jobs, growth and job opportunities in the event that the Government decides to sell a State asset or a portion of one, or takes equity in a State asset. I am living in the land of reality and considering practical outcomes. I am focusing on sorting out our own problems, which will not go away and which will only get worse if we leave them alone.
They are getting worse.
The central focus is on our people and on the ultimate challenge of this Government, which is to deal effectively with unemployment.
The only thing the Taoiseach got was that the bondholders would not be burned.
It is a burden.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.