Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 May 2012

Vol. 765 No. 4

Leaders’ Questions

I want to welcome the shift in debate on the treaty towards a focus on growth and investment. In that regard and during the course of this campaign, we have witnessed a vagueness from the Government side about that growth and that investment. We had more of that yesterday following the announcement by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform on the sale of €3 billion worth of State assets. What will the Taoiseach say about that in his meeting with European leaders on 23 May? As the emphasis shifts onto the European Investment Bank and other investors, as the Minister described it, where will that money come from? At the moment, the small businesses of this country cannot get money from the banks. The Governor of the Central Bank said Ireland was the most difficult place in the EU to get money. The Central Bank has expressed concern that there was very little competition in the market place.

The Taoiseach told the House yesterday that €3.5 billion would be earmarked for small businesses in the course of this year. The fact is that owners of small businesses will tell us, as we canvass for this treaty, that it is the same environment as 2011, 2010 and 2009, and that they are simply not lending money. The office that exists to process appeals to the bank is simply not being used to the extent that we would all like, because there is a fear that it will impact on their relationship with the banks concerned. The money is not being taken up. Businesses are not being allowed the freedom to advance their enterprises on the basis of loans from the bank, yet we are being given misleading information from the bank on this issue.

What action will the Government take? We have had activity, but we require action within the business world to help the backbone of the Irish economy, which is made of the SME sector creating 700,000 jobs and made up mainly of families who are central to community developments and so on. What will we do directly to assist them right now, rather than wait for the investment promised by the Government from the sale of State assets?

I thank Deputy McGuinness for his question. The growth agenda has now become a feature of most comments made by European leaders, and I am very glad about that. We have made that case on behalf of the country for the last number of months, and I am glad it has crystallised with the election of President Hollande in France. The President of the EU Council, Mr. Van Rompuy, has called the meeting on 23 May the first European summit on growth for a long time. I welcome that unreservedly. It is also very clear, as Deputy McGuinness pointed out, that the agenda of the French President represents an additional factor to the elements contained in the fiscal stability treaty, on which people here will vote on 31 May. The discussions which took place yesterday between the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and the EIB are part of the agenda set by the Government for investment in infrastructure projects and the development of the economy. Following several discussions with the troika, the Government has set a target of €3 billion to be realised from State assets, to be put on the market at the appropriate time and to realise the best possible benefit. The extent of what will come from that has also been discussed with the troika. The discussions that took place with the EIB revolved around the blockages in the system for the release of public private partnerships, for which the EIB is a major funder. Were those blockages to be released, then clearly a range of infrastructure sectors could certainly benefit from that in Ireland. However, that will not happen in the immediate future. There will be intensive follow up to the constructive meeting that took place between the Ministers and the EIB.

The Minister of State, Deputy Perry, has focused specifically on the issue of credit to SMEs in Ireland. The Department of Finance, the Government and the Economic Management Council are constantly in touch about the issue. This means face to face meetings with representatives of the banks, which have set out their programme on new lending for this year. The Deputy knows it is very difficult to force a bank to lend in a time of recession, and I get the same complaints as he does. I am unhappy about those complaints, but if the banks are able to deliver on the plans they have produced, then they certainly will be constructive. Many small businesses previously got money on the basis of property assets. That is no longer available to them, because banks now have to lend on the basis of assessed risk and cash flow projections. Small businesses have not had that capacity in the past either. There is a delay there, which I can see myself, where the proper cash flow projections should be put forward as part of the plan.

The Economic Management Council, which I chair, will be meeting the banks again before too long. This is a central issue. It is very important the opportunities be put in the marketplace for small and medium enterprises to have access to credit. That is why we published the legislation for partial loan credit guarantees and for the micro-finance agency, on which a great deal of work is ongoing in the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and the Department of Finance.

The Deputy is right to raise this issue. It is of considerable importance to the Government and we will continue to focus on it.

We know that, and the Taoiseach said some of it yesterday in his reply to Deputy Micheál Martin. However, 50% of businesses that have applied for loans have been refused. Some 91% tell us the banks are more difficult to deal with. This is the analysis of a survey carried out by a national organisation associated with small businesses. Some 79% of businesses say working and dealing with their bank has become much more difficult and they simply cannot get money.

Vast sums of taxpayers' money have been put into the banks by the Government and the previous one. The Government has promised €3.5 billion in the course of this year. Despite this, 92% of those surveyed say that what the Government is doing is having no impact whatsoever on lending by banks. If the Government is to recover that State money, if we are to get money from investors and if we are to get people back to work, it is essential the banks be forced to assist small businesses.

The Taoiseach said something critical yesterday and again today. He said the banks have changed their approach to lending money. I would expect that from them. They have changed it to such an extent, however, that the majority of small businesses, which are responsible for 700,000, jobs, cannot get the money, which is taxpayers' money that we put into the banks. We seem to be sitting on our hands and talking about the activity of all of this while businesses throughout the country go broke and jobs are lost. Confidence within the business sector, and therefore job creation, is now falling through the floor and we are not responding in any meaningful way. Promises will not do anymore. Whatever the Taoiseach does, I ask him to ensure he comes heavy with the banks and insists on the money going to the SME sector to create the jobs which are much needed.

I do not accept Deputy McGuinness's premise. I am not a spokesman for the banks - far from it. The Government has this matter as a central priority. In the past, during the Deputy's time in Government, banks swamped businesses with money, which in some cases they had not even asked for and on the basis of little evidence or proper facility. Things have now swung the other way. Regulations and conditions make the capacity to get money from banks difficult. In a time of economic challenge, banks have tightened up. They have been very clear, however, on the scale of new lending for this year.

I would like to see small and medium sized enterprises use the Credit Review Office to a greater extent. I do not accept they are reluctant to appeal to the office for fear of being in bad taste with the local bank manager. Bank managers move around the country regularly. I do not accept that premise at all. Business is business and does not stand on sentiment or who the local bank manager is. Things are very different from 20 years ago. As a business man himself, Deputy McGuinness can take it the Government will continue to interact with the banks and to exert pressure in this regard.

It is not being delivered.

The banks now tell me they are holding open days and attending functions and chambers of commerce meetings. They say they have been recapitalised, have money to lend and people should talk to them. I do not know the details of all those conversations, but it might be a good idea to have a discussion in the House on the types of cases mentioned by the Deputy, without giving details or names, obviously. Such a discussion would be important in making the banks aware of the extent of what the Deputy is talking about but also in pointing out what is being done.

Great work is being done on the personal insolvency Bill, which is part of this critical area. The Bill is complex and is expected to be published by June.

I do not accept the Deputy's premise that we are sitting on our hands. There is very direct contact with the banks about lending credit to businesses.

The figures I quoted came from an independent survey.

Yes, we have to change that.

Níos luaithe ar maidin inniu, bhíomar uilig ag ocáid chuimhneachán Éirí Amach 1916, ocáid a bhí go han-mhaith. I am sure the Taoiseach will agree that today's ceremony was very moving and a reminder of how much we owe the men and women who proclaimed the Irish Republic, in defiance of an empire, 100 years ago.

In this context, I raise the issue of the deplorable state of the national monument at 14 to 17 Moore Street and the surrounding laneways, which the Taoiseach has visited and which he has described as the lanes of history. This iconic area marks one of the most important sites in modern Irish history. It must be protected and developed as an historic quarter and battlefield site in time for the centenary of the Rising. The Taoiseach has seen 14 to 17 Moore Street. Its condition is a disgrace and is an insult to the memory of those men and women whom it should honour.

É sin ráite, léiríonn a bhfuil ag tarlú i leith an tsuímh seo i láthair na huaire achan rud atá mícheart leis an Stát. Cad é sin? A developer, Mr. Joe O'Reilly, one of the Maple Ten golden circle, is planning to demolish the surrounding area for the building of a shopping complex. This developer is in NAMA, which is now considering funding this development. In other words, Irish taxpayers - Irish citizens - may be asked to pay for the vandalising of a national monument. This is wrong. It stands in stark contrast to the way other states acclaim those who fought for freedom and independence and it totally contradicts the tone of our commemoration this morning.

Will the Taoiseach support the proposition put forward by the families of the 1916 leaders to ensure the 1916 national monument at 14 to 17 Moore Street is fully protected and preserved in its entirety as designated, and that the surrounding buildings, streets and laneways, which the Taoiseach, rightly, called the lanes of history, are retained in order that the potential for this area can be fully developed into a 1916 historical or cultural quarter?

Bhí mé i láthair ag an ócáid ar maidin agus aontaím leis an Teachta Adams go raibh sé thar a bheith oiriúnach. Is maith an rud go mbíonn an cuimhneachán ann mar atá. Tá sé tábhachtach do stair na tíre agus don aos óg go gcuimhneoimís ar a thárla i 1916.

Nos. 14 to 17 Moore Street are designated under law as a national monument. Approval for development in the vicinity of any national monument must have the approval of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. The Minister, Deputy Deenihan, has been quite interested in this matter for some time.

There is potential for a major project here. The Constitution allows for the right to own private property. The developer bought the property in the vicinity of 14 to 17 Moore Street, as he was entitled to do, and Dublin City Council gave approval for a particular form of development. The question now is whether the development is in order and whether such a development could be allowed in the vicinity of the national monument where Clarke, Plunkett, Collins and Connolly, of the provisional government, offered their surrender.

As this small country was one of the first small states of the last century to achieve its independence and as the 1916 Rising, in its own way, took the first fledgling steps towards economic and political independence and sovereignty, there could be a marvellous opportunity for that to be remembered in a fitting fashion. By that, I mean the use of the lanes of history in a way that would allow for a more appropriate structure than currently stands where the Carlton Cinema, which was the subject of the planning application, and other buildings nearby are concerned. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Deenihan, will be happy to respond to a motion Sinn Féin will bring to the House shortly.

It is a case of judgment in respect of the preservation of the monument, which when I was there recently does not look edifying. It is not the kind of place one would like to bring people from abroad who might be students of history or the progress of small nations towards independence to see where the Provisional Government of that time offered its surrender. There is major potential in this project, up as far as the Rotunda, on which the guns were placed or the street down below where the actual surrender took place or where the O'Rahilly was shot and where he died and the commemoration that is there. We must have a rational discussion about what we want to do with Nos. 14 to 17 Moore Street and the buildings in proximity to what is under law a national monument.

First, the terrace is a slum. That is the truth of it. Second, the city council has unanimously asked the Minister to designate the entire terrace as a national monument. It has not been developed at all. The families of the 1916 leaders and others have done significant work in publicising the issue and campaigning for a fitting national monument. I thank them for that. Tá mé fíor bhuíoch dóibh agus caithfimid uilig a bheith buíoch dóibh. As the Taoiseach correctly stated, this was the last headquarters of the Provisional Government. It is where Connolly, Pearse, Clarke, MacDiarmada and Plunkett all came together. It is where The O'Rahilly was killed, but under the developer's plan the place where he was killed would disappear and the terrace would disappear. What is being proposed is that an historic quarter would be developed from Tom Clarke's shop, which is now hidden behind neon and plastic, to the Rotunda where the volunteers were marshalled and stripped naked by the British, to where the surrender was handed over, right down Moore Street and further down into the GPO. The State controls the site through NAMA. It has been NAMAed. The Joe O'Reilly project is under the control of NAMA. It says a lot about the state we are in. We are also facing the centenary of-----

Could we have a question please from the Deputy?

Okay. We are facing into the centenary of 1916 and the relatives have put forward sound proposals which are fitting for such an iconic holy place but which would also help to revitalise the north side and the centre of the city in a way which we have seen in other states and countries. This is not a Sinn Féin issue; it is bigger than us. I simply ask that the Government would support what the relatives of the men and women of 1916 are asking to be done.

I do not recall using the word used by Deputy Adams, "slum".

I used the word.

Gabh mo leithscéal, a Theachta. I brought people to look at Nos. 14 to 17 Moore Street. It is not an edifying site and not the kind of place one would like to send people to have a look. Given modern technology and the availability of computer applications - apps - when one walks out the side door of the GPO and turns left - as all those who were evacuating the building did and broke in through the side wall of the building out onto the street-----

They were all breaking the law.

-----one would like to see all the information relevant to each of those steps of history available in whatever language people wish. I am not an architect but it is clear that the proposal made was given a decision by the elected representatives of the city council and Nos. 14 to 17 Moore Street are preserved under the national monuments legislation.

We are in a different position than we were a number of years ago in terms of developments and taking into account people's rights in respect of ownership and development under conditions under the Constitution, there could well be a meeting of minds to develop a worthwhile historic quarter, as Deputy Adams indicated, in respect of what was the central location and the culmination of centuries of activity in this country, which culminated in 1916. The point raised by Deputy Adams is beyond any party. The children in the Gallery will read about that in their history books as they learn stair na tíre. It behoves us who are currently the representatives of all the people of the country to reflect on what is best. It is clear that there are requirements and responsibilities on the city council and the planning officials under the planning legislation but its potential speaks for itself both as a tourism entity in its own right, as an historic quarter and as an indication of one small island in the north Atlantic being one of the first countries at the beginning of the previous century to achieve its independence. The issue raised by Deputy Adams will be brought to the attention of the Minister who will be happy to respond to him when we have a debate on the matter in the next fortnight.

To clarify, the part of the country I come from is not yet independent.

I was conscious of the flicker of Deputy Adams eye when I mentioned that. He was trying for 30 years at it.

Last week the Government published the European Stability Mechanism Bill. Article 15 of the ESM treaty provides for the recapitalisation of financial institutions across Europe. The panacea of the ESM, which the Taoiseach says is needed for future funding of the Irish State, is going to sign up Irish taxpayers to the continued funding of bank bailout debt right across Europe. The only guarantee of the ESM is that it has the most gigantic pot of taxpayers' money in Europe. The ESM cannot recapitalise banks directly. It loans money to taxpayers who give the money to the financial institutions, creating the biggest socialisation of bank debt right across Europe. Will the Taoiseach tell the House why he thinks the biggest socialisation of bank debt is good for the Irish people post our 2008 experience?

I understand that Deputy Pringle has instituted proceedings in the High Court which include the seeking of an order to compel the State to hold a referendum on the ESM. He has also challenged the process to amend Article 136 of the treaties of the European Union, which is the Lisbon treaty, which is already under way. Therefore, I do not propose to comment on something that might be before the court, except to say to Deputy Pringle that what the people are being asked to vote on, on 31 May, is for their permission and authorisation to ratify the fiscal stability treaty. The process of that ratification will be the fiscal responsibility Bill which will be introduced in the House if the people decide to give that authorisation. The Bill will be debated both in this House and in the Seanad without delay and in proper fashion.

What is involved are three fundamental issues, first, the signal that approval of the treaty will send out, not just to Europe but worldwide that this country is open for business and that the long line of continuous investment in this country will be able to continue; and second, that the insurance policy or backstop of the ESM will exist for consideration by investors who want to invest in the country if that were ever to be required. As far as the Government is concerned, we want to be out of the bailout programme at the end of 2013. That means that this country must be able to get back to the financial markets and borrow as a sovereign country. Deputy Pringle is aware that we are in a programme at the moment that is assessed by the troika. It will be infinitely more difficult to achieve that realisation if this country were to turn down the fiscal stability treaty. We need clarity, confidence and decisiveness. From my perspective, the request to the Irish people is to give this House the authorisation to ratify the conditions of the treaty. It will allow for continued investment, a backstop and insurance, which is a fundamental issue for investors in the country.

The provisions of the treaty will allow us to legislate for good housekeeping requirements and ensure good fiscal discipline in this State. It will oblige us to put our own house in order. Everybody would agree that we do not want to go back to the old ways.

The question about whether we have a referendum on the ESM will be decided by the courts, and I hope to see the Taoiseach down there. My question related to the substance of the treaty itself and its provisions. Article 15 provides that the ESM may decide to grant loans for the specific purpose of recapitalisation of the financial institutions of an ESM member state. To clarify, those loans are provided to the member state to give to the banks and there is no question of the ESM recapitalising banks directly. Does the Taoiseach consider this a good deal for the taxpayers of this country and across Europe?

I mentioned this possibility in Dublin Castle some weeks ago and I note the IMF has made similar comments. There is concern being expressed about the banking situation in Spain, for instance, which may require an analysis similar to what was carried out in this State. There is no appetite for a second situation arising in this country where the State would have to borrow to pay off the banks. In the event that something like that were to happen in another country and the ESM were to be availed of to capitalise those banks, I am of the view that the same would have to be made retrospective to Ireland. That is a possibility as an alternative to what is currently being discussed with the troika by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform in respect of the promissory notes, with a view to making our recapitalised debt - the moneys borrowed to pay off the banks and put onto the sovereign debt - more manageable in the context of our deficit and, therefore, our debt repayments. These matters are being monitored closely by Government and, in respect of the promissory notes, are the subject of continuous discussion between the Department, the troika and the European authorities.

Top
Share