Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 May 2012

Vol. 766 No. 2

Priority Questions

EU-IMF Funding

Michael McGrath

Question:

1Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the likely cost of funds that would apply, in the event that the Fiscal Stability Treaty referendum is passed on 31 May, if Ireland should need to avail of funding from the European Stability Mechanism beyond the period of the current EU-IMF programme of assistance; the way this compares to current market rates for Irish Government bonds; if he will confirm the other sources of funding that would be available for the country in the event that the referendum is rejected and access to the ESM is blocked; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25880/12]

It is not clear what other source of funding would be available if the stability treaty is rejected, with the resulting loss of access to the ESM. However, what is clear is that any funding that would be available would cost considerably more than any prospective ESM funds. The IMF has indicated that it will provide funding to Ireland only as part of a European initiative. I have consulted with the NTMA and it considers that a "No" vote in the referendum on the stability treaty would mean in all likelihood that it would not be possible for Ireland to re-enter the bond markets at sustainable rates. Ireland's programme of financial support runs to the end of 2013. It remains on track. Based on current projections and assuming no market access, the State has access to sufficient funds for its needs well into the second half of 2013. The continuation of the strong programme implementation will ensure that we emerge successfully from this programme. It is the NTMA's stated intention to return to sovereign debt markets as soon as market conditions permit.

The availability of ESM funding is an important part of facilitating our return to the markets as it provides reassurance to the financial markets. The ESM treaty sets out the arrangements for loan pricing. In summary, it will be the financing and operating cost plus an appropriate margin. It is not appropriate to speculate on the interest rate that would apply in the event that funding were to be sought from the ESM. However, the average cost of our current EU-IMF funding is 3.46%. This is well below the current market rates for Irish bonds – where the ten year rate has been around 7% in recent months.

The capital structure of the ESM was designed to ensure that it would receive the highest possible rating, thus ensuring the lowest possible cost of funding. The principle that the EU funding mechanisms should not generate a profit is now well established following the reductions to the EFSF and EFSM rates agreed in 2011.

I thank the Minister for his response. In the remaining week of the referendum campaign, the debate will come down to brass tacks. We know for sure that in the second half of next year Ireland will need to have identified with certainty how the country will be funded on exiting the EU-IMF programme. We know we will need €36 billion in 2014 and in 2015 to ensure this country is fully funded. Is it not the case that the funding options facing this country are either to borrow substantially on the markets or to have access to ESM funding? Currently, the rate being charged under the programme is approximately 3.5%, while the markets, when I checked at lunch time, are charging 7.35% on a nine-year government bond.

The Minister said something very significant at the outset of his response and I ask him to clarify that. He said the advice from the National Treasury Management Agency to him as Minister is that the rejection of the treaty will mean, in its professional opinion, that Ireland will not be in a position to return to borrowing markets next year at sustainable rates. Will the Minister clarify whether that is the advice the NTMA has given to him?

I will reread my note again on that for the Deputy so there will be no misunderstanding - I have consulted with the NTMA and I consider that a "No" vote on the referendum on the stability treaty would mean in all likelihood that it would not be possible for Ireland to re-enter the bond markets at sustainable rates.

The NTMA is held in high regard and its reputation is beyond question and that is very significant advice from it. I would regard the fact the NTMA has given the Minister the advice that the country will not be in a position to fund itself beyond next year if the treaty is rejected as a highly significant intervention. Does that advice concur with the Minister's opinion as Minister for Finance?

It fully concurs with my opinion. However, the NTMA is not reflecting my opinion. It is independent and it is charged with funding the requirements of the State. It is the NTMA's considered opinion that a "No" vote will, in all likelihood, make it not possible for Ireland to re-enter the bond markets at sustainable rates. What the Deputy said in his initial remarks is also true. When it comes to the back end of 2013 - in my opinion and in the opinion of the NTMA - there will be two choices. We can choose either to get money from the ESM or get money from the markets. These are interrelated and the fact of having access to the ESM will make it more likely that we will be able to access money on the markets. It will also be more likely that we will be able to get it at a lower rate of interest, because we will have an alternative source through the ESM fund.

Stability and Growth Pact

Pearse Doherty

Question:

2Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance if he will detail structural deficit projections for 2016, 2017 and 2018 and the adjustments and or growth projections that will be required to move from the structural deficit target of 3.5% which he projects for 2015 and the 0.5% rule that the he will have to meet after 2015; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25884/12]

Joe Higgins

Question:

3Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Minister for Finance if he will outline his economic growth and structural deficit and national debt projections in the five years after Ireland makes its scheduled exit from the EU-IMF Programme of Financial Support and the corresponding projections for Ireland’s debt to GDP ratio; if he will estimate the scale of adjustments required during this timeframe in order that Ireland meets it structural deficit and debt to GDP ratio targets contained in the Fiscal Compact Treaty. [25725/12]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 3 together.

As part of the corrective arm of the Stability and Growth Pact, once an excessive deficit has been identified, the focus of budgetary policy is on reducing the headline deficit to below 3% of GDP. Following agreement with the ECOFIN Council in December 2010, we are required to correct our excessive deficit by 2015, a timeframe that balances the need for consolidation as well as the need to support economic recovery. Under the European semester, member states are required to produce macroeconomic and fiscal forecasts for the current year and for the following three years. The Department does not have detailed macroeconomic and fiscal forecasts beyond 2015 as this is not the norm.

Once a member state corrects its excessive deficit, it is subject to the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact, where the focus is on targeting a structural budgetary position that ensures fiscal sustainability over the medium and longer-term. This is the so-called medium-term budgetary objective, MTO, which for Ireland is currently a structural deficit of 0.5% of GDP. As is it part of the Stability and Growth Pact, we are required to target this MTO irrespective of the stability treaty. Post-2015, therefore, we will be required to make progress towards meeting our MTO. This will be done on a phased basis on the basis of a timeline to be agreed with the Commission.

However, as I have outlined before, the exact size of the structural component of the deficit in 2015 is highly uncertain and contingent on policy measures yet to be announced or to take effect. The range of estimates by different institutions is currently quite large and I would point out that, in the context of the stability treaty, participating member states are not bound by the EU harmonised methodology. For national purposes, a methodology adapted to Irish circumstances can be used. Moreover, not only do technical estimates differ depending on the approach used, but it is also the case that estimates of the structural balance further out on the forecast horizon are not fixed. Policies being implemented at present, together with future measures, can be expected to impact positively on the current point-in-time projections.

As I have said previously, reducing the structural element of the deficit will require policy action, though not necessarily taxation and expenditure adjustments. Other options are available and it is the Government's intention to pursue these. Such measures include labour market reforms, together with investment in technology and infrastructure. By boosting the productive capacity of the economy, the ambitious programme of micro-economic reforms that is already under way is expected to help reduce the structural element of the deficit by the middle part of the decade. For example, the Action Plan for Jobs 2012 and the Pathways to Work initiative include reforms aimed at addressing some of the skills mismatch in the labour market, which should help permanently lower the unemployment rate. This would have a structurally beneficial impact on the public finances, on both the revenue and expenditure sides. In summary, therefore, there are many moving parts and all of these make estimates of the budgetary impact of meeting our medium term objective subject to a high degree of uncertainty.

As part of the reforms to the Stability and Growth Pact contained in the so-called six pack of legislative reforms, member states with a debt-to-GDP ratio in excess of 60% will have to reduce the part of their debt ratio above the 60% threshold by one 20th annually. This will have to be done irrespective of the stability treaty, although it also forms part of the treaty.

Ireland and the other member states currently in excessive deficit on the basis of the deficit criterion are not subject to the debt correction rule at this time. In Ireland's case we must first stabilise our debt-to-GDP ratio. It is forecast that this will be achieved next year. After coming out of the current excessive deficit procedure and as a programme country we will be able to avail of a three year transition period before the full one 20th rule will apply. This means Ireland will not be fully bound by the one 20th rule until 2019, although in the 2016-18 period we will need to make sufficient progress in terms of reducing our debt ratio.

I reiterate the point that when it comes to meeting the debt requirement it is reasonable to expect that economic growth will do most of the heavy lifting. To suggest otherwise is misleading.

I agree with the Minister regarding the difficulty in predicting the structural deficit for 2015 and beyond. A range of moveable factors will impact on the figures to improve them or make them worse. However, let us deal with the Department's best predictions based on the models and expertise available to it. Does he agree that the statement on the programme update issued by the Department in April indicated a structural deficit of 3.5% in 2015? That would leave a gap of 3% or €5.4 billion based on GDP. Setting aside our agreement regarding the difficulty of making projections, the Department's best attempt reveals a structural gap of €5.4 billion between the medium term objective of 0.5% and its projected figure of 3.5%

The IMF is the only organisation to project the structural deficit post-2015. Its country specific report, which was released earlier in the spring, indicated that the structural deficit in 2016 and 2017 would decrease marginally by 0.1% in the absence of further adjustments, even based on a growth rate of 4.9%. Does the Minister agree that further adjustments will be needed and, in meeting those adjustments and closing the gap, will he rule out additional tax increases or cuts?

I draw Deputy Doherty's attention to a statement made on "Prime Time" last night by the eminent economist, John McHale, who is chair of the fiscal advisory council. He took the view that no additional consolidation would be required to meet the structural deficit even under very conservative assumptions about growth. One takes note of what somebody with the stature of Professor McHale says.

Deputy Doherty followed a good line of argument but it contained fallacies. The 3.5% figure which the Department produced last April included the Commission's figure because it was based on the latter's calculation. All these forecasts are done at a point in time. Put simply, the point in time in this instance was that if no policy changes occurred between last April and 2015, the Department estimated that the structural deficit would be 3.5%. However, the Government is evolving policy on a monthly basis. The jobs plan drawn up by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation provides for 232 different initiatives and is being driven by the Taoiseach in a Cabinet sub-committee. A timeline has been devised for Departments and they have to report back to the Taoiseach and provide an explanation if they are not delivering.

During the boom years when the building industry was going great, we appeared to have a surplus but while we had one in nominal terms in fact we had a structural deficit. If the Government of the day had taken the heat out of the building industry rather than continuing to rely on the transaction taxes the industry produced it would have addressed the structural deficit and we would not have faced the problem in 2010. Similarly today if we retrain building workers so they do not remain permanently unemployed we can take them off the live register and do not have to pay social welfare. We will thereby address the structural deficit. Of course it has to be corrected but not by means of tax increases or cuts. It is structural and if we change the structure we will address the flaws.

Many eminent economists take a very different view from that of Mr. McHale. These views, which are supported with facts, figures and actual projections, indicate that severe cuts and tax increases will be necessary to reduce the structural deficit to 0.5%. Does the Minister acknowledge that many aspects of these decisions and the implementation of the targets are being taken out of the hands of the Irish Government and placed under the control of the European Commission, which under article 3 of the austerity treaty will determine the size and pace of cuts?

Where will the Minister find the growth that he claims will do most of the heavy lifting when all the evidence shows that austerity here and in Europe is savaging growth? We experienced a decrease of 2.5% in GNP last year and the domestic economy slumped over the last two quarters of 2011. That process is likely to continue as long as the Government continues to pile cuts on the Irish people.

As a Member of the Dáil elected by the people of Limerick, is the Minister in any way disturbed by the increasing harassment and bullying of our people by all kinds of economic agencies? The people are told they must vote "Yes" irrespective of what the treaty contains or else they will be isolated by the speculators in the markets. They are thereby invited to divert our attention from the details of the fiscal compact treaty and its implications for our economy. Is that not a reprehensible situation?

The only harassment and bullying I have seen in the past couple of weeks involved supporters of the "No" campaign harassing and bullying the Taoiseach as he campaigned across the country. They tried to prevent him from explaining the situation to ordinary, decent citizens. Deputy Higgins should exercise influence over his supporters, if he has any, to stop this harassment of the Taoiseach and respect the dignity of his office and the offices we hold as Members of this Parliament. He should not go for street politics when he can express himself freely in here.

Our supporters harass and bully nobody.

I cited Professor McHale because of his eminence as an economist and the position he occupies as chair of the Fiscal Advisory Council. We should give weight to what he says. I cited his comments so that Deputies will know he made them and can give them due weight. Of course there are other voices on the "Yes" side as well as the "No" side and some people exaggerate the position. Our target is a nominal deficit below 3% by 2015. Part of the nominal deficit will be structural. It is not possible at present to say what the structural deficit will be because all estimates are based on the assumption of no policy changes that will reduce or increase the structural deficit over the next four years. That is pure theory but does not work in practice. We will have a number of years to deal with the structural deficit and get it down to 0.5% of GDP. There are four ways of doing it: we can tax, we can cut, we can get the economy to grow or we can address the structural flaw. One of the big contributors to the structural deficit is the 150,000 people who became redundant from the building industry. If we can retrain many of them and get them back to work as well as re-employing some in the building industry through initiatives such as the one announced by NAMA this morning, we are dealing with the social welfare bill, moving away from long-term unemployment and reducing the structural deficit. It is alarmist so to say it will be slash and burn fiscal economics for three or four years after 2015, with no choice but to cut services and tax. That is not true. Professor McHale said the heavy lifting will be done by growth on very modest growth assumptions, without addressing the structural flaws in the economy.

We have gone over time. The next question is in the name of Deputy Michael McGrath.

This is a Priority Question at a very important time. A decision was made to group Priority Questions and this denied a supplementary question for this Priority Question. It is inappropriate.

We can take up that point but we cannot deal with it now. I will take it up with the Office of the Ceann Comhairle.

It is utterly inappropriate that the option has been denied to us. It is our right to have a supplementary question on the Minister's argument. The grouping of this question by people who are opposed to the treaty is absolutely wrong.

The general principle is that it is a matter of time rather than the number of supplementary questions.

Did I go over the time allocated to me? It is not my fault if the Minister went over his allocated time.

I ask Deputy Doherty to resume his seat. We can take up the point with the Ceann Comhairle.

I support Deputy Doherty.

It is fair to point out the grouping is a decision of the Office of the Ceann Comhairle.

It is very serious.

National Asset Management Agency

Michael McGrath

Question:

4Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance his views on whether all properties being sold by agents on behalf of the National Assets Management Agency or on behalf of receivers appointed by NAMA should be advertised on the open market in order that all potential interested parties have the opportunity to make an offer for the property. [25881/12]

Under the NAMA Act 2009, the sale of private property by the National Asset Management Agency is a matter for the board of NAMA. I have no function on such matters. I am advised by NAMA that the NAMA board issued policy guidelines in mid-2011, which set out that, in the absence of very exceptional circumstances, the sale of all property assets undertaken by debtors or receivers shall be by the appointment of suitably qualified agents and that all such sales must be appropriately marketed. The marketing strategy for all asset disposal is determined by a range of factors, including the asset class, size, value and location. In all events, NAMA insists on independent valuations of all assets.

A key principle of the guidelines is that the conduct of disposals should be on a competitive basis and in accordance with prevailing market norms for the asset class and jurisdiction, having regard to NAMA's objectives set out in section 10 of the Act. NAMA advises the principal methods of sale are private treaty, sale negotiated directly with a purchaser, sale by public auction, sale by public tender, sale by sealed bids, and other disposal mechanisms tailored to the specific characteristics of the underlying real estate or a combination of the above. Sale instruction and contracts with agents and brokers require prior approval by NAMA or the participating institutions.

The guidelines also require that sales agents are expected to prepare a final report and recommendation addressed to the debtor and copied to NAMA. Included in these reports should be a summary of the marketing campaign which, generally, should not be less than one month; a list of all parties who expressed interest in the real estate or were contacted during the marketing campaign; a recommendation to accept the terms of the purchaser's offer as the best price reasonably obtainable for the asset at the date of the recommendation; confirmation that the agent has reviewed purchaser's confirmation relating to connected party sales; and a statement disclosing any commercial relationship between the agent, debtor, purchaser or purchaser's ultimate beneficial owners in the past five years and how any actual or perceived conflict of interest was managed during the sales process.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

In certain limited circumstances, NAMA and the participating institutions may agree an alternative form of disposal with the debtor or insolvency office holder with, for example, more limited marketing or reporting requirements. However, decisions on alternative forms of disposal are subject to review by the board of NAMA.

The Deputy recently raised concerns in relation to the sale of land controlled by NAMA debtors in Cork.

This issue goes to the heart of the need for transparency in the operation of NAMA. This came to my attention because of the sale of a 450 acre land bank outside Cork city. It was sold by agents appointed by a NAMA debtor and the sale was completed without the property being put on the open market. On further investigation, it appears this is not an unusual occurrence. NAMA is hiding behind a facade, appearing not to be the seller even though it is pulling all the strings. NAMA appoints receivers, who appoint selling agents or, in some cases, NAMA debtors directly appoint selling agents at the behest of NAMA. In effect, the assets are being sold on behalf of the taxpayer and the proceeds will be used to redeem debt owed to NAMA. There is something very wrong when NAMA cannot tell us how many of the 663 sales it has completed have been put on the open market. Will the Minister insist that in all cases where assets are being sold by NAMA or on behalf of NAMA and where the taxpayer has a direct beneficial interest, the properties are put up for sale on the open market so all interested parties can submit bids and be considered on a fair basis?

I will clarify the matter according to what NAMA told me about the sale in Cork. In that instance, NAMA advised me the sales agent was acting on behalf of the debtor and that a competitive sales process was undertaken. The debtor was not in liquidation. I understand from NAMA that the sale was managed and implemented on behalf of the debtor by a firm of professional sales agents. Following wide engagement with viable interested parties, a special purchaser emerged in respect of the entire holding of 450 acres at a price considerably in excess of that guided by the retained professionals. It was the considered advice of the sales agent that the offer from this purchaser would be accepted. I understand that NAMA, on receipt of this information, commissioned a second independent report by another professional firm, which agreed with the original guide price. On the basis of the independent valuation advice, which established the price offered was 40% in excess of the two independent valuations and taking account of the fact that the offer was for the entire holding rather than for individual land plots within it, NAMA granted its approval to the debtor to proceed with the sale on the advised terms on the basis that this maximised the recovery for the taxpayer.

With the greatest of respect to selling agents, they cannot know what property is worth until it is put up for sale on the open market. In this case, it concerns a land bank of 450 acres of prime agricultural land with some potential for future development. Many people would have been interested in the land bank or parcels of it. The broad principle concerns more than just this case. Where NAMA is selling assets through debtors or receivers, the assets should be put up for sale on the open market. We should insist upon the principle and the Minister should exercise political judgment on the issue and not allow NAMA to enter into private deals. Even if the deal achieves the best price, we cannot be certain. The only way to ensure we get the best price is to put land on the open market. As legislators, we should insist that is done in every case.

NAMA is an independent organisation established under law by this House and the Seanad. It is a criminal offence for anyone, including the Minister for Finance, to try to steer or influence a commercial decision being made by NAMA. NAMA is accountable and, for example, it must produce quarterly reports. The report on the last quarter of 2011 will be published tomorrow. NAMA is also amenable to scrutiny by the Committee of Public Accounts. The chairman and the chief executive of NAMA can be called before the Committee of Public Accounts in the normal way.

The Comptroller and Auditor General, under law, has a special auditing relationship with NAMA and he and his team can go into NAMA and examine every piece of paper in there to see if everything was done properly and appropriately. NAMA is also amenable to other committees of the House and an annual report is published. There is accountability and Deputies should exercise it. Furthermore, if there is concern about a specific aspect of NAMA's work, it is within the power of the Comptroller and Auditor General to scrutinise any aspect of it. He is not obliged to wait for the production of the annual report from his office but rather the Comptroller and Auditor General can undertake an examination of any aspect of NAMA's work.

Economic and Monetary Union

Finian McGrath

Question:

5Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Finance if the Euro was adopted without proper evaluation of its merit. [25726/12]

The overriding objective of the single currency is to enhance the living standards of the citizens of all participating member states. This is achieved inter alia by greater levels of trade, a deepening of the Single Market and increased financial integration within the EU, all of which are facilitated by the single currency.

While it is fair to say that the euro has been successful in this regard, a number of design flaws have become evident in recent years. Perhaps the most obvious example is the greater capacity for spillover effects and unfortunately, we have seen the impact of inappropriate policies in some member states affecting other member states.

In order to address these difficulties, a number of important institutional and governance reforms have been implemented in recent years. These include the so-called six pack of legislative reforms, the euro plus pact and the European semester. All of these reforms are designed to ensure that member states implement appropriate and sustainable economic and fiscal policies which take into account the euro area dimension.

This retrofitting of the monetary union with the tools to make it commensurate with an economic union is a positive development and I would not understate the importance of the improvements that have been made. However, it will clearly take some time for these reforms to bear fruit. In addition, a five-point strategy is being implemented in order to maintain the euro area on a sustainable path. The main elements include addressing the difficult situation in Greece, recapitalising European banks and implementing structural reforms to boost growth.

From an Irish perspective, a major study of the costs and benefits of membership of the single currency was undertaken by the ESRI in the mid-1990s. The research concluded that Ireland would benefit from participation in terms of lower interest rates and reduced transaction charges.

I thank the Minister for his response to my question. Will the Minister accept there is genuine concern in society about the future of the euro and its impact on the economy? Does the Minister accept that the political and economic landscape is changing on the day? Is there a plan B to deal with these situations?

I ask for the Minister's response to a statement by the Nobel prize-winner economist Paul Krugman that Europe has had several years of harsh austerity programmes and the results are exactly what students of history said would happen. Such programmes push depressed economies deeper into depression.

Is this the current situation in the European Union? Was the euro too much of a political project rather than an economic project? I note the Minister in his reply accepted that there were design flaws. Did it remove a critical shock absorber to cope with the economic imbalances? Did all the experts and the people in the ESRI tease out that situation comprehensively?

I thank the Deputy for his questions. I have said on numerous occasions, both in the House and outside, that when the euro was put in place the architecture to defend it in times of adversity was not put in place. What has been happening for the past couple of years is an attempt to retrofit the defence mechanisms for the euro and this continues. The Deputy will know the flaws in the original design and he will know about the current attempts to put the architecture in place.

Deputy McGrath referred to remarks by eminent economists. The debate in Europe is not unique as there is an even hotter debate in the United States about whether to stimulate the economy or to balance budgets and reduce expenditure. Views are divided strongly on political lines in the United States where there are very eminent economists on both sides of that argument. We have to rely on authorities nearer home and take cognisance of their advice.

In my view, the euro was an excellent project. There is not a lot wrong with the euro but the problems are in certain areas of the eurozone. For example, the level of the euro relative to the dollar at which the euro was introduced has been exceeded and despite all the difficulties, it is still at a higher value than when it was introduced. Second, inter-country trade in Europe since the introduction of the euro, has grown by 50% and the euro is still being held as a reserve currency by many countries outside the euro area. The euro is pretty sound but it has to be underpinned by actions which are now being taken.

Does the Minister accept the recent statement by economist and journalist, David McWilliams when he said that unless Germany is prepared to diffuse money to the periphery for the foreseeable future, there is a very good chance that the euro will break up? The Minister referred to the inappropriate actions of governments in the eurozone as being the cause of this crisis. Does he really believe that the six pack reforms will resolve this issue and keep everybody on track?

There is no silver bullet that will resolve everything but they are a series of actions which taken together or in sequence can help to underpin the euro. Much of the work is already underway. The treaty is very important as a foundation stone and also the corrective action being taken in many European countries is very important. However, I also believe the change of emphasis in the debate now to have a programme of sustainable growth across Europe, is also very important. Taken all together and if we keep driving forward, I believe matters will stabilise. However, we all know there are extreme difficulties at present.

Top
Share