Micheál Martin
Question:1. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if the responsibility of delegation orders are within his remit; if he has signed any recently; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48013/12]
Ceisteanna - Questions (Resumed)
Ministerial Responsibilities
Delegation of functions orders are made by the Government at the request of the Minister concerned. At my request, on 22 March 2011, the Government made an order delegating my statutory functions in relation to the Central Statistics Office under the Statistics Act 1993, the Civil Service Regulation Acts 1956 to 2005 and the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004 to the Government Chief Whip and Minister of State, Deputy Paul Kehoe.
I am particularly interested in learning whether a delegation of powers order has been signed in respect of the most recently appointed Minister of State, Deputy Alex White.
That was signed this morning.
That being the case, it raises the question of why it took in excess of one year to sign the delegation order in respect of the former Minister of State, Deputy Róisín Shortall. It seems extraordinary that the Taoiseach could act expeditiously, as he has on this occasion, but it took in excess of one year to sign the delegation order in respect of Deputy Róisín Shortall. Did issues arise in respect of that delegation order?
We are dealing with questions to the Taoiseach.
Yes, but the Taoiseach is the signatory of the orders. What were the events, if any, that precluded the Taoiseach from signing the order in respect of the former Minister of State, Deputy Róisín Shortall? Did the Taoiseach have discussions with the Minister for Health or the Tánaiste? Did people advocate against signing the delegation order? When it was eventually signed, why was primary care not included in the delegation order?
I take it that all Ministers of State have had their delegation orders signed. Are any areas of responsibility described by the Taoiseach in the initial appointment not covered by the delegation order signed?
It was not a case of reluctance to sign the delegation order. Primary care does not have a statutory legal base. It is a difference between statutory legal basis, policy issues and administrative issues. The fact that it took some time to get this correct in respect of the previous Minister of State was also an issue in respect of her successor, Deputy Alex White. This meant it was a continuation of officially carrying on the delegation order given to the previous Minister of State. It was not a case of deliberately delaying. Primary care is not a statutory power; policy and the administration of primary care were the subject of the delegation order for the Minister of State. That continued with the current incumbent.
The Minister of State, Deputy Paul Kehoe, has functions relating to the Central Statistics Office, including signing statutory instruments, replying to parliamentary questions on statistical matters and receiving regular briefings on statistical matters from the staff of the Central Statistics Office. The Minister of State is also responsible for reaching agreement with the National Statistics Board on guiding the strategic direction of the Central Statistics Office.
The Statistics Act 1993 provides that the director general of the CSO is completely independent in the exercise of functions relating to statistical methodology and standards, the content of statistical releases and publications and the timing and methods of dissemination of these releases and those publications. Clearly, there are specific functions delegated to the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs who is accredited to the Departments of the Taoiseach and Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Ministers of State are appointed by the Government and their general role and responsibility is to assist Ministers in the running of their various Departments. In many cases, that particular assistance is related to policy issues and, therefore, formal delegation of statutory powers is not, or may not be, necessary, depending on the policy issues the Minister of State deals with.
If I understand the Taoiseach properly, his initial response to the question did not name the new Minister of State with responsibility for primary health care, Deputy Alex White, as someone for whom a delegation order had been signed. He then conferred with the Minister for Health and said this had been done this morning. I think that is correct. Is it not?
Yes, it was approved by Cabinet this morning.
Just in the nick of time.
Or just in time for Saint Nick.
He then went on to say that in the case of a Minister of State having responsibility for primary care there is no need to sign a delegation order. If there was no need to sign a delegation order for Deputy White why did the Cabinet approve it this morning?
To be sure to be sure.
Was there no need for a delegation order for the former Minister of State, Deputy Shortall, who resigned when the Minister for Health interfered with a list of primary care centres to add locations in his own constituency after the list had been completed? We need consistency.
I understand that I am only learning here, but can the Taoiseach help me through this? No delegation order was signed for Deputy Shortall during her entire term in office. The Taoiseach says it was not necessary but yet he signed one this morning for the new Minister of State, Deputy Alex White.
There is no mystery here. A delegation order was signed for the previous Minister of State, Deputy Shortall, with regard to her duties. Some of the duties were administrative and did not require a delegation order. Some of the duties were dealing with issues that did require a delegation order.
The same applies in the case of the Minister of State, Deputy Alex White. The administrative end of the work he is dealing with does not require a statutory declaration but he also deals with opticians and dentists in the case of fluoridation-----
And primary care.
And primary care, yes. The areas of opticians, dentists and fluoridation do require a statutory delegation order. Government approved of that this morning and signed it for Deputy White.
The administrative end of primary care, or the administrative areas associated with any other issue, do not themselves require a statutory declaration.
But one is required for primary care centres.
Not in itself, because it is not a statutory function. It does require a statutory declaration to deal with questions about opticians, dentists and fluoridation.
The Minister of State also deals with the area of primary care and the administration of that, including primary care centres.
He should have gone to Specsavers.
Cabinet Confidentiality
Micheál Martin
Question:2. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the progress that is being made in his Department in the commitment to legislate for Cabinet confidentiality as outlined in his Department's strategy statement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48015/12]
Gerry Adams
Question:3. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the plans he has to introduce legislation to deal with the issue of Cabinet confidentiality. [49777/12]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 3 together.
Cabinet confidentiality is provided for in the Constitution and I have no plans for legislation on the matter.
I thank the Taoiseach for his response, but it is quite extraordinary that he has so rapidly abandoned a commitment in the programme for Government. I suppose it is just one of many commitments that have already been abandoned and of many election promises that have been treated with total abandon as well.
The Taoiseach's Department's strategy statement said the Government would legislate on the issue of Cabinet confidentiality. We saw, in the course of the preparation of the most recent budgets, the Economic Management Council functioning as a de facto Cabinet. We used to have kitchen Cabinets, now we have an Economic Management Council. It would appear that the reason that was adopted was to ensure the minimisation of leaks from Government, which were happening every hour of every day in the run-up to last year's budget.
This year, the Taoiseach managed to keep things quite tight until he went to Cabinet with his set of proposals. Then we found ourselves with a budget that had very few surprises in it, with the exception, perhaps, of the misery the Government was intent on inflicting on carers.
Can the Taoiseach explain what has motivated him to abandon the promise he included in the programme for Government and in his Department's strategy statement? At one time, the Taoiseach promised to issue report cards for each of his Ministers. Has he been checking their performances with regard to maintaining confidentiality or leaking on an ongoing basis?
I assume the Taoiseach himself is firmly committed to Cabinet confidentiality. What is he doing, on an ongoing basis, to address the regular leaks from Cabinet and what action can the public expect him to take in a situation where he can identify a member of Cabinet who has been responsible for a significant leak? In government in the past, the Taoiseach's party had to take the extraordinary step of removing a junior Minister who leaked the entire budget in one go. Maybe his only mistake was to give it all out at once. In recent times we have been getting it in dribs and drabs.
Deputy Ó Fearghaíl will recall the Howlin judgment when the confidentiality of correspondence received by Members of the House was challenged. That will be dealt with in the whistleblowers legislation in 2013.
I have read some of the material that purports to be from the Cabinet. I paraphrase Mark Twain and say those rumours are greatly exaggerated. I have read of vicious rows, walk-outs and this, that and the other. I assure the Deputy the Government is completely focused on its work for the country, our national challenges, our people and getting our economy right. Confidentiality is something all Ministers sign up to, in terms of the Official Secrets Act. In that context, legislation is not necessary.
I remind Ministers on a regular basis of the importance of keeping that confidentiality. I have no control over rumours, speculation or allegations. If we go back as far as 1922 and look at reports of every Government since, we see the same old story applies. Those outside the Cabinet like to write about what they think goes on in there. There have been occasions in the past when some of these things happened to be true. I can assure the Deputy that the recent headlines I have read are very far wide of the mark.
I am nor surprised by that because all the rumours and leaks imply that Labour stood up to the Fine Gael Government. I do not see any evidence of that.
We could be court-martialled yet.
Deputy Howlin is pirouetting over the poor.
The programme for Government contains a commitment to legislate on the issue of Cabinet confidentiality and he says he will not act on that. It also commits to opening the budget process to the full glare of public scrutiny in a way that restores confidence. The programme for Government also says the Government is too centralised and unaccountable and that a real shift in power from the State to citizens is required.
Have all those pledges been torn up?
The Economic Management Council put together the budget. Four men put together an anti-woman, anti-family, anti-children budget. There is less scrutiny of all of these decisions in this Chamber, where we are supposed to debate them, than is the case in other parliaments. We only hear about them through the media, accurately or otherwise, or from the Bundestag. We do not hear about them in here in the way we should. There is no proper scrutiny because we are not given the information to do the job we were sent here to do.
To be clear about this, is the Taoiseach saying he is not moving on the commitment in the programme for Government to legislate on Cabinet confidentiality? Is he going to move on the commitment to shift power from the State to citizens? Will he move on the commitment to making the Dáil more open to public scrutiny, and if so, when? What status has any pending legislation?
What steps does the Taoiseach intend to take around the budget? Once again today, budget measures will be rushed through. How will the budget process be opened up to public scrutiny, particularly here in Dáil Éireann?
The Deputy will be aware Article 28.4.3° of the Constitution states:
The confidentiality of discussions at meetings of the Government shall be respected in all circumstances save only where the High Court determines that disclosure should be made in respect of a particular matter -
(i) in the interests of the administration of justice by a Court, or
(ii) by virtue of an overriding public interest, pursuant to an application in that behalf by a tribunal appointed by the Government or a Minister of the Government on the authority of the Houses of the Oireachtas to inquire into a matter stated by them to be of public importance.
In that sense, confidentiality is paramount in the Constitution and should never be abused by any Cabinet.
The Deputy mentioned information being made available by the Bundestag. I admit there was an indiscreet leak from the European Commission in respect of the requirement that when the general proposals for the budget are put together, they must be presented to lender countries as a requirement of the funding mechanism. We have changed the situation so that when that information is presented, it is laid in the Oireachtas Library at the same time in order that there is no confusion.
Ministers hope the presentation of the budget will take place in November next year. We have published the review of expenditure, setting out the ceilings for each of the next three years. We have asked every Department and Minister to examine those limits and present their views. We have restored the Freedom of Information Act, the whistleblowers' legislation is in train, the register of lobbyists legislation is being prepared and we have expanded the role of the Ombudsman. In a short time, given the extent of legislation that must go through, a great deal has been done.
Given all of the information that was made available to Deputy Adams and his colleagues, it was strange that Sinn Féin did not show any seriousness about making really tough choices. The party did not submit its own proposals for the budget for independent costing and analysis by the independent unit of the Department of Finance. All of the information is available for the Deputy, and that will be supplemented during 2013 when we also hope to have an earlier budget process. Deputy Adams should make sure his people are prepared.
Did the Taoiseach have advice from the Attorney General on the proposed legislation on Cabinet confidentiality? In light of the many commitments made by Government about reform of politics, it would appear we are seeing the actual reform. At Cabinet level, it involves a small cohort of four people making the principal decisions and bringing those decisions to the full Cabinet at the last minute. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine has complained about this and I suspect some of the decisions made about not proceeding with the additional 3% universal social charge on people earning over €100,000 might not have been agreed if the entire Cabinet had been involved. We might not have seen carers being abandoned in the way they have been.
Here in the House, the new politics is to guillotine critical legislation, such as the Social Welfare Bill, which will be guillotined in the Seanad this afternoon, and we see the appalling procedure being adopted for the property tax proposal. We know it will not come into play until July and there is time for detailed discussion. At least there should be time for a fair debate on the 88 amendments tabled to the Bill because, when enacted, this legislation will place an intolerable burden on the shoulders of many people in the State who are unable to carry their current burdens.
Does the Taoiseach accept we are now seeing real reforms but not the reforms people thought they would see, not the positive initiatives the public, when it placed its faith in the Government parties in substantial numbers in 2011, thought it would get and that it had a right to get?
The Economic Management Council is a useful method of dealing with a range of issues and proposals before they are sent to Government for final decision by the Cabinet. Every member of the Government accepts the decision of the Cabinet on the budget. It has been streamlined like this to save time as much as anything else. Ministers had to have bilateral meetings with the Minister of Public Expenditure and Reform in respect of the ceilings for their Departments and how they would meet their individual targets. The Minister for Finance set out tax proposals at the other end.
The Committee of Public Accounts report on the possibility of a banking inquiry recognised that the constitutional principle of Cabinet confidentiality must be respected. Obviously, I also believe that.
The Deputy mentioned the Social Welfare Bill. Just two years ago the Deputy was on this side of the House and the Fianna Fáil-led Government took 8% off a swathe of social welfare recipients but did not even let the Deputies go home to engage with their constituents first. It did it before the Dáil broke up.
That budget was considered fair and progressive, unlike the current Government's budgets.
It brought the country to its knees.
The pension for the blind was cut twice just a couple of years ago; we do not want to go back there. We are heading into 2013 and the process for the budget for next year will be even more open that it is now. The expenditure review plans have been published, the ceilings for each Department for the next three years are available and we have asked every spokesman to look at those figures. We hope to have a vigorous, open and comprehensive series of discussions during 2013 on the budget for 2014.
I am asking these questions because the initial question asked about the Taoiseach's plans to introduce legislation to deal with the issue of Cabinet confidentiality.
I asked that question because the programme for Government contains that commitment. Cad a tharla leis? What happened to that commitment? If it is not appropriate - the Taoiseach read an extract from the Constitution - why was it in the programme for Government in the first instance?
All Sinn Féin proposals for an alternative budget were sent to the Department of Finance, which costed all of them bar one. The only one it did not cost was the wealth tax - it refused to cost the wealth tax. We offered the wealth tax as an alternative to the family home tax, which the Government is rushing through this Chamber.
There is one big thing to which I have been unable to get an answer. I do not believe the Taoiseach can dodge behind the issue of Cabinet confidentiality on this one because it considered taking away the respite care grant, cutting child benefit, making maternity benefit taxable and so on. Was the budget equality-proofed? When the four just men sat in their little Cabinet sub-committee meeting and took all these decisions, and it was brought to the Cabinet, did some of the Ministers not ask whether it had been equality-proofed? Somebody is bound to know. Was the budget equality proofed? The Taoiseach knows the litany of people who are burdened by what his Government is doing. Were these most vulnerable people, who are affected by these scathing cuts, part of the deliberations and was the budget equality-proofed?
The Deputy has not defined what he means by equality-proofed. In so far as the consideration of the Government was concerned, all of the issues in the budget were considered in the sense of being balanced given the circumstances in which the Government finds itself and we acknowledge the challenge that many people face here. I will not legislate for Cabinet confidentiality. I have looked at this and it is clearly in the Constitution. I have referred to the Howlin judgment about the confidentiality of material transmitted to Members of the House, the consequence of which will be contained in the whistleblower legislation which is under way. The Attorney General was not consulted here. In that sense if I recall from comments made by some of the Sinn Féin Deputies, I believe its costing was done by submission of parliamentary questions as distinct from a formal set of proposals to be costed one after the other by the relevant section of the Department of Finance.
We needed to get the costing first before making the proposal.
For years Opposition parties have prepared their alternative budgets and have sent them in their entirety to the section in the Department of Finance which assesses them. Fine Gael did so for years as did the Labour Party. Sinn Féin chose to ask a series of parliamentary questions and then make wild and fanciful comments about everything being rosy in the garden under Sinn Féin, that nobody would have to pay anything because some mythical myriad of millionaires would trump up everything under the Sinn Féin propositions.
The poor would not have to pay for it.
What about in Northern Ireland?
Sinn Féin never faced the difficult choices that are the reality of what Government decisions have to deal with. Nobody likes to announce reductions in benefits. We need to deal with the problem of our national finances and we have tried to do that in as fair and balanced a way as we can.
Cabinet Committee Meetings
Micheál Martin
Question:4. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the number of Cabinet committee meetings held so far this year; if there is any committee that has not met yet. [49721/12]
Gerry Adams
Question:5. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the supports provided by his Department to the Cabinet sub committee on mortgage arrears. [50878/12]
Micheál Martin
Question:6. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if the Cabinet committee on children's rights referendum has met recently. [50918/12]
Micheál Martin
Question:7. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the number of meetings of the Economic Management Council held this year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [56512/12]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive, together.
All Cabinet committees, including the Economic Management Council which has the status of a Cabinet committee, have met this year and a total of 91 meetings have been held. My Department provides all necessary secretariat support for the Cabinet committee on mortgage arrears. The Cabinet committee on the children's rights referendum met on two occasions, on 23 and 31 August, and its work is now concluded.
I refer first to the Cabinet committee on the children's rights referendum on which a few questions need to be addressed. It is sad that in the aftermath of the very significant High Court ruling on the information leaflets the Government circulated in the course of the campaign, that we only had an opportunity earlier today to address this matter when Deputy Troy questioned the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, on it. As it is something about which the public is concerned, I ask the Taoiseach to give us some information on the workings and meetings of the Cabinet committee on the children's rights referendum.
Did that committee approve the wording of the material that appeared on the website and was circulated in the leaflets that were distributed across the country? With the benefit of hindsight, is the Taoiseach satisfied that the very strong similarity between the party-political leaflets that Fine Gael and the Labour Party produced was reflected in the material that was produced by Government, which in itself is clearly contrary to the terms of the McKenna judgment? Does the Taoiseach accept that because all parties in this House were in support of the amendment the Government was complacent in its approach to the referendum? When I had the opportunity to speak here on the Thirty-first Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill, I said it was incumbent on all of us to go out, be enthusiastic and positive, and explain the merits of this proposed amendment to the public. While we welcome that the referendum was won, we were all disappointed that the level of participation was far less than most of us, including, I am sure, the Taoiseach, would have liked.
I ask the Taoiseach to outline the workings of the Cabinet committee on the children's rights referendum. Can the Taoiseach finally give us information on the role of the Attorney General regarding the wording used? In the aftermath of the ruling, leaks from the Government indicated that some people were seeking to lay the blame for the difficulties in which the Government finds itself at the door of the Attorney General. Would the Taoiseach care to exonerate the Attorney General from any involvement in this process? Did she see the wording?
I am constrained in what I can say because there is a High Court challenge under the provisions of the Referendum Act 1994 and therefore I do not want to say anything in the House that would in any way prejudice that challenge before the High Court. The referendum took place against the background whereby for 20 years it had never reached the point of the question being asked of the people. It was a significant development by the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs working with the Attorney General and the Government to bring it to a point where the people were asked that question. As the Deputy is aware, we have now had four referenda in 18 months. The Constitutional Convention has been established. I accept completely and I respect the decision of the Supreme Court in this matter and the Government will reflect on the issues raised by the Supreme Court in its judgment. Clearly the Supreme Court is the ultimate legal arbiter in terms of the Constitution and the way our legislation is to be interpreted. As there is a High Court challenge under the 1994 Act, I do not want to say anything in regard to the referendum that might in any way be deemed to be or perceived to be prejudicial to the case before the High Court. I would be happy to talk about it afterwards.
My question is on the Cabinet committee on mortgage arrears. However, before I come to that, if I may, I wish to say that it is clear the budget was not equality-proofed. There is a practice in the North, which is part of the statutory obligation - I believe it is section 75 - making it necessary for departments to equality-proof any decisions they take.
I commend that to the Taoiseach. It would mean that the Government would have looked at cuts in the respite care grant or child benefit and assessed the social and other consequences for citizens.
The Cabinet committee on mortgage arrears met eight times in recent months. As the Deputy is aware, the committee was established last March and its remit is to oversee the implementation, on a cross-departmental basis, of the Government's response to mortgage arrears, agree a detailed implementation plan for the recommendations of the report of the interdepartmental working group on mortgage arrears, ensure appropriate prioritisation of the delivery of this plan is put in place across all relevant Departments, and develop any further issues relating to mortgage arrears that are required arising from publication. The Government focused on four areas, which included resolution strategies by the banks and the new personal insolvency framework.
The Deputy will be aware that the Personal Insolvency Bill was published in June 2011, completed Fifth Stage in the Seanad last week, and is back in the Dáil for Report and Final Stages this week. It will be completed by the end of the year and will create a modern and fairer approach to dealing with unsustainable debt. Work is also under way on the establishment of the Insolvency Service of Ireland to ensure it is ready to provide the new service following the enactment of the legislation. The director of the service is in place along with a number of staff to oversee the establishment of the service early in 2013.
Deputy Adams rightly raised the issue of repossession of homes. He is aware that when banks lend money to borrowers for the purchase of houses, there are conditions attached to those lendings. This means that if the borrower is not in a position to pay, the right of acquisition or repossession of the house applies. In this country, the number of repossessions has been very low and we want to keep it that way. We did not want to present the issue raised by the Dunne judgment, which was a loophole in the legislation identified with regard to certain circumstances for some loans, until the Insolvency Service of Ireland was in place. The issue required clarification under the memorandum of understanding with the troika, and this will be done afterwards. It does not mean there will be a rash of house repossessions, as some people have said. The Ceann Comhairle knows better than most that everybody in this country has pride in their homes and that ownership of a home is of exceptional importance.
The homes of the most distressed mortgage holders can be protected through a mortgage-to-rent scheme, where the ownership of the house passes to the approved housing body, subject to eligibility criteria. There is also the question of comprehensive guidance and advice. I note that AIB said recently that it hoped to be in a position to deal with 2,000 mortgages per month that are either in arrears or distress or where there is a problem. I am sure that the best news many households can get is that a solution has been worked out that does not require the repossession of the home. We hope that can continue and that as prosperity increases and the economy grows, many single people and couples who own houses and are unemployed have the opportunity to secure employment and will, therefore, be able to meet the mortgage payments set out for them.
The Central Bank, which is the regulator of credit institutions, asked all mortgage lenders to prepare and submit to it mortgage arrears resolution strategies and implementation plans. Mr. Matthew Elderfield explained this when we met him on a number of occasions. Following the submission of those plans, the Central Bank commenced an in-depth engagement process with all lenders to assess their validity, the sectors into which they were divided, and the areas of the country to which these referred. The reason for that was to ensure every lender had an effective strategy in place to deal with all mortgage holders experiencing difficulties. Arising from this, banks had to refine their proposals because the regulator was not happy with them and they committed to the Central Bank to build on existing so-called forbearance solutions to extend the range of alternative solutions to deal with genuinely distressed mortgage holders. The main lenders have completed the segmentation of their loan books and submitted to the Central Bank the options they propose to implement to deal with distressed mortgages. These include split and trade-down mortgages, restructuring of mortgage payments and forbearance.
I hope that in dealing with persons with distressed mortgages or who are in difficulties, the solutions required by the Central Bank of the lenders to which the banks have committed themselves and the introduction of the Insolvency Service of Ireland will provide alternatives to the banks that are open to anybody to avail of if they so wish. It is hoped the Bill will be passed this week and be in operation in the early spring. That is one element of dealing with complex and sensitive issues. The other is to drive the economy to a point where people who are unemployed or on low incomes or who may have lost their jobs will be able to get back into the world of employment, contribute and meet the requirements under the conditions of their mortgages. In some cases, as has been pointed out, banks must look at some element of write-down in particular circumstances, but I hope the level of repossessions will be very small.
I thank the Taoiseach for his response and, at the outset, acknowledge the enormity of the challenge facing the Government in this area. I welcome the Taoiseach's commitment to getting the Insolvency Agency of Ireland up and running, and I take it that he has said this will happen in the first quarter of 2013.
Yes.
The Taoiseach referred to the fact the Government has come up with a number of initiatives. He must accept they have had a minor impact. The last time I read about the rent-to-buy initiative, it appeared that one person was involved. I know the voluntary housing sector is working with AIB in particular to do something about people in arrears. The number of people who are benefiting is infinitesimally small relative to the growing number of people in distress. Deputy Adams rightly referred to the 180,000 mortgages that are in distress, and that figure might exceed the 200,000 mark by the time the Insolvency Service of Ireland is up and running.
What does the Taoiseach envisage in terms of the capacity of the agency to deal with the vast number of cases that will face it? I also wish to refer to the impact of the property tax on the buy to let sector which is now in considerable difficulty. I understand 100,000 people are on local authority waiting lists. The Central Bank has described the pillar banks as continuing to be in denial. As a result of the budget additional burdens will be placed on those who have buy to let properties, are in negative equity and at risk of repossession. They will carry the burden of the property tax, and this is in parallel with the work being done by the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, who we can say in a general sense has a mandate to do something about the €500 million a year spent on rent subsidy. If the Government is driving down rent subsidy but also increasing the cost burden on those in arrears in the buy to rent market, it will store up additional problems for us. What will happen to the tenants, many of them very ordinary people-----
The Deputy is straying a little.
Perhaps so but perhaps the Taoiseach will give me a little flexibility and address the issue.
I gave the Deputy a little flexibility.
The Ceann Comhairle did and I thank him.
There should be an opportunity in the new year for a broader discussion on this with the Minister of State with responsibility for housing, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, and with the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government and the Minister for Finance. Nobody has been standing up for the banks, nor do I but they have changed their attitude. I understand they have trained personnel to speak directly to people in mortgage distress or arrears and quite a number have been restructured and this is to be welcomed. The insolvency agency support through the legislation will provide an alternative method of dealing with serious debt for people and banks know this. From their perspective it would be far better to be able to work out a solution for people in distress or mortgage arrears in whatever category. I hope the words I hear will be seen to be implemented because this is of enormous importance and there is pressure on people every day.
I cannot provide the Deputy with the work schedule of the insolvency director but he is in situ with staff to back him up. I am sure we can supply the Deputy with their tentative proposals which would be in everybody's interests. I would like to see in the spring, either at Oireachtas committee level or in the House, an opportunity to discuss the ongoing work of the insolvency agency when it has been established to see how effective it can be. As the Deputy knows, from its drafting to its conclusion this week, the Bill has been very complex and technical. I hope that with all of these measures and with the projected growth in the economy, the situation for people with mortgages, particularly those in arrears or in distress, will improve.
Will the Taoiseach explain how the Economic Management Council functions as a sub-committee of the Cabinet? Is it the case that virtually the entire budget announced for 2013 was decided by four members of the Cabinet and announced to the full Cabinet only at the last minute? Is it the case that the Economic Management Council has acted in a secret and authoritarian fashion? From what we have heard we could compare it to a Stalinist politburo concentrating huge power in a few hands and operating in great secrecy. How does this equate to the democratic revolution the Taoiseach promised at the beginning of this Dáil? Is it the case that because there is a coalition government the council and its operation is a preservation mechanism for the leadership of the two parties, Fine Gael and the Labour Party? Essentially they treat their backbenchers like tunnel mushrooms, keeping them in the dark on key issues, dumping on them the austerity decisions which have great public distaste and then simply picking them to come in and vote for them. From where does this modus operandi come and what justifies it?
The Taoiseach paid a glowing tribute to home owners in regard to the upkeep of their homes, paying their mortgages, etc. He has always held this position, but in 1994 he felt a property tax was a vampire tax which would drive a stake through the heart of home ownership and suck the lifeblood of people who want to own their own homes and better their conditions. What has changed the Taoiseach's mind on this?
Last year in preparation for the budget for 2012, as soon as the Dáil came back in September every week there was a rash of speculation about what would be cut, which certainly had a direct impact on consumer confidence and retail because people quite rightly decided to hold tight because they did not know what was going to happen. This year the budget was discussed and approved collectively by the Cabinet. It is a requirement that it be signed off by the Cabinet. The preparation for this was not just conducted by the Economic Management Council. Individual face to face and bilateral meetings were held between the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and each Minister on the ceiling for each Department and proposals for savings, and all of these were signed off at bilateral level. It came through the Economic Management Council and then on to the Government.
This year there was not the same level of public comment, except I noticed wild speculation that the old age pension would be cut, free travel and free light would be stopped, the period for free fuel would be shortened and the allowance would be stopped, and carers allowance and the home care package would be cut. There were also extraordinary remarks about the scale of the property tax and that it would run to thousands of euro. The same speculation was made in comments about the requirement to deal with pollution from septic tanks in various parts of the country and the extraordinary amount this would cost. Obviously these were very different in reality.
The year 1994 was a very different space. We have had the obscenity of several Governments in between shovelling out mountains of money which did not belong to us and which somebody would have to pay back.
The Taoiseach told them to give out more.
In this sense we have had to focus on how to rectify this problem and believe me it is not easy. In the past 15 months things have begun to turn towards the right direction. Serious challenges still face the people. As I stated, the assistance of our European colleagues is something we need. It is not a case of a quartet deciding on every element of the budget. All of the bilateral meetings took place.
Ministers agreed on Votes and figures for their respective Departments and then that was discussed collectively, signed off collectively and approved collectively by the Cabinet as is its responsibility. The Minister for whatever Department would not be aware of the detailed discussions about another Minister's Department until such time as the Cabinet would come together collectively on that.
On the Cabinet committee on mortgage arrears, did this committee meet with the troika and discuss its demand that legislative impediments to banks repossessing family homes should be a priority for the Government? It is difficult to tally the Taoiseach's soothing words about the low level of repossessions in the country and his assurances that the personal insolvency agency will protect home owners from the loss of their family homes with the simultaneous demand by the troika that legal impediments to the right of banks to repossess family homes should be a priority. Did this committee discuss that with them and could they explain their rationale in making this demand? Is it not the case, consequently, given this demand, that those with mortgages, particularly distressed mortgages, should be fearful because our troika masters are demanding that banks should be able to repossess more homes?
On the Economic Management Council it is clear from the protections, in terms of low corporate tax rate and a refusal to impose the financial transaction tax, that the submissions of the banks and groups such as the clearing house group were listened to by the Economic Management Council. Is it equally obvious that the Economic Management Council did not listen to the plethora of civil society groups and groups dealing with poverty, such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Social Justice Ireland and the trade unions, which were representing the least well off and struggling sections in society and which made submission after submission asking that the burden of austerity in the budget should not fall on those who are already struggling to survive? Is it the case that the Economic Management Council, the inner cabal of the Government, listened only to one section of society - the troika, the banks, the very wealthy - and simply refused to listen to and ignored the civil society and other group organisations that represented ordinary citizens - low and middle income earners, the unemployed and the vulnerable in society? Is there something radically wrong with the way this inner cabal of the Government is deporting itself, in listening only to one minority section of society and not listening at all to the voices of the majority?
There are no marks for that. The Economic Management Council did not meet the troika. The Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform regularly met the troika in regard to the memorandum of understanding and the fulfilling of the conditions of the bailout programme, but the troika did not meet the Economic Management Council.
The question of the troika putting forward its view that legal clarification was required in regard to the consequences of the Dunne judgment dealing with mortgages is something that had to be dealt with and that legal clarification will be provided following the setting up of the insolvency service. That is not to be taken as any indication of a rash of house repossessions. I already made the case on that to Deputies Ó Fearghaíl and Adams.
I answered Deputy Boyd Barrett previously on the financial transaction tax. We have objected to the financial transaction tax. We have not participated in the enhanced co-operation at European level for that tax. Ireland imposes stamp duty on transactions. Clearly, we did not want to place the International Financial Services Centre at a disadvantage to London if none applied there. The Commission, in its own documents, reported on the financial transaction, but I do not speak for other countries in this regard. Now that 11 of them have signed on for enhanced co-operation with regard to introducing a financial transaction tax, Ireland, as the incoming Presidency of the Union, will not impede that although, of course, we will need to know the conditions that apply to it.
The low corporate tax rate has been an important element of investment in this country over many years. The rate is 12.5%, 11.9% effective, across the board. As Deputy Boyd Barrett will be aware, in some of the other countries in Europe-----
Rubbish. It is not 11.9%.
-----different rates of corporate tax apply for different sectors and, indeed, in different regions, but in Ireland it is straightforward and transparent. It is an important element of the attractiveness of the country for investment.
I do not know from where the Taoiseach got 11.9%. That is a fantasy.
We will not be changing that.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.