Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 Mar 2009

Vol. 194 No. 7

Investment of the National Pensions Reserve Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2009: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I welcome the Minister of State. I support this vital legislation. Last October, the Government introduced the guarantee scheme which has proven to be the most important pillar put in place to support the banking system. The scheme has provided protection for the system, for depositors and those who invested in the banks. The Bill before the House is no less important than that scheme. The Government has decided to influence the way in which the banking system will develop in the coming years. It will do so by way of investment rather than by engaging in a bail-out of the banks. There are certain individuals who, on each occasion on which they are interviewed on radio, state that the Government is bailing out the banks. There will be no bail-out. The two main banks in which taxpayers' money is being invested will be obliged to pay for that assistance.

Without a banking system, we would not have an economy. We must ensure that our economy and the 1.8 million people who are in employment have access to a banking system that serves them well. In addition, it must serve small and large businesses. There is also a need to ensure that credit flows will be in place when the economy begins to recover.

We are being obliged to underpin a system that was failing. This problem is not peculiar to Ireland; the banking system worldwide has failed. In that context, the American Insurance Group, AIG, the largest insurance corporation in the world, announced further major losses last week. While the situation in this country may be bad, that which obtains in other jurisdictions is worse.

It is the Government's job to lead and it has been very successful in doing so in respect of this matter. However, it is important to think outside the box when considering the various financial sectors. There is a particular sector which has not really been mentioned and to which not much consideration has been given. I refer here to the credit unions, which have approximately €13.5 billion in deposits on their books. These institutions could be encouraged to play a greater role in respect of the current crisis. For example, a Government bond scheme in which they might invest could be introduced. This would be better than investing on the open market, which gave rise to major difficulties for them in the past two years. A Government bond system such as that to which I refer could be a means to bring additional money into the banking system at a lower but safer level, particularly in view of the fact that credit unions are tied to more co-operative and local management support structures. There is no doubt that additional cash is required. In that context, a national bond scheme in which people might invest should be introduced. When money was required in the past, ordinary citizens supported such a scheme. The time is right to introduce a national bond scheme.

In the context of how we might move forward, people have posed the question as to whether further recapitalisation will be required in respect of the banks. The answer is probably yes. I would not rule out the prospect that the banks may eventually need to be nationalised. No one has been able to solve the crisis currently affecting global financial markets. Ireland has probably been more cautious than other countries, some of which were quick to invest in their banks. The latter course of action does not appear to have had a positive impact. It is only now that Ireland is making an investment in its two main banks. This is a timely development. The banking system must now provide the flow of credit necessary to keep the economy going.

I am not as concerned, and I do not become as excited, as Senator Butler about the use of the term "bail out" in respect of the banks. I have always understood that term to have originated from the need to remove water from a sinking ship. However, I am not sure whether that is the correct derivation. We are extending a huge indulgence and generosity to the banks and, in the circumstances, the term "bail out" does not fall too wide of the mark.

Senator Twomey raised an important point when he inquired as to the likely impact of the measures being introduced in this Bill on the National Pensions Reserve Fund. Will the Minister of State outline the nature of the assessment carried out by the Government in respect of the impact of these measures and indicate whether the residual moneys in the National Pensions Reserve Fund will be sufficient to allow it to be used for the purpose for which it was originally established? Elaboration of this matter has not really been forthcoming. The Minister of State indicated:

The use of some of the resources of the National Pensions Reserve Fund to fund the bank recapitalisation programme strikes a prudent balance between the need to address an urgent economic priority and the need to continue to take account of long-term budgetary stability and the sustainability of our pensions system

I accept that he is saying, on behalf of the Government, that there is not a major concern in this regard and that a prudent balance will be struck. However, the National Pensions Reserve Fund is the property of the Irish people. We are entitled to some insight into the Government's view on the potential or likely impact on that fund of our delving into it for a purpose which was not envisaged when it was established. It is at least arguable that this purpose is one which, if not expressly excluded, was certainly implicitly excluded when the fund was formed.

It is important to recognise what is being done in the legislation before the House. Senator Norris referred to raiding piggy banks etc. Regardless of how one describes what is happening, it is important that we make clear that we are making a fundamental change to the character and purpose of the National Pensions Reserve Fund, which was established in 2001. There is no point seeking to characterise it as something temporary or as an ad hoc contingency that we must use for the moment and see how we get on. This legislation fundamentally alters the very principle and nature of the fund and the reasons for which it was established. That being so, a greater insight and a little more elaboration and analysis is necessary of the Government’s view as to the future direction of the fund. What will the fund be in the future? Is it likely or at least possible that it will be open to further raids, although I hesitate to use that word because it is emotive? Is it the case that on policy grounds the Government will make other changes in the future to allow the fund to be used for other purposes? I accept that it will be done by way of legislation, but there is an element of uncertainty now as a result of the Government having altered the fundamental basis on which the fund was established.

I smiled a little when I heard the Minister of State say that the existence of the fund gave the lie to the notion that at the height of the Celtic tiger economy, when the country was awash with revenue, the money was squandered. It does not give a lie to it at all. Is the Minister of State seriously saying that because the fund was set up in 2001 to deal with the cost to the Exchequer of social welfare and public service pensions which will arise from 2025, it is an answer to the charge levelled against the Government that it failed to act prudently or understand, especially in the serious decisions that were made throughout the past seven or eight years, that there were inherent risks in the way the economy was going and that much of the economics being practised could only be described as mañana economics? Is he seriously invoking as his defence to the charge of mañana economics the existence of the fund? The fund was set up for a specific, good and prudential purpose in 2001, to anticipate how the Exchequer would deal with the pension demands that would arise after 2025 and not as a means of setting aside money for a rainy day which has now unquestionably arrived.

The Minister of State let the cat out of the bag by stating that the NPRF "has enabled us to cope with the banking crisis without aggravating further our alarming budget deficit". It was never the intention of the NPRF to enable us to cope with a banking crisis. Let us be clear on what the fund is and let the Government acknowledge that they are bringing about a fundamental change in that. What the Government is seeking to do is to alter wholly the nature and purpose of the fund. Regrettably, the Exchequer has no other source of funds to recapitalise the banks. The Government has no choice; it must do it. It must go to the piggy bank, as Senator Norris described it. However, it should not spin these things. The Minister of State is not the worst spinner in the outfit. That is not a criticism but is meant as a compliment.

I appreciate it is meant as a compliment.

He usually states things reasonably clearly but many of his colleagues do not. There is an attempt to spin this matter even in some of the arguments from my colleagues on the Government benches who say it is good for the National Treasury Management Agency, the Government and so forth. It is not good that we must dip into this pension contingency fund. It is terrible that we have to do it and why do people not honestly say so instead of trying to suggest that it is fantastic and will be great for everybody? It is a disastrous thing to have to do.

It is in a line of emergency measures the Government has had to introduce repeatedly in the Houses owing to our current situation. My colleague, Deputy Burton, has stated that according to her count, this is the ninth measure the Government has attempted to take or purported to take to deal with the banking and credit crisis in this country. On most occasions when an action is taken by the Government the other actions that are ruled out at that time are subsequently taken. Last September, for example, there was not going to be a recapitalisation because it was deemed unnecessary. There was also going to be no nationalisation of any banks. A mini-budget was categorically ruled out in the words of the Minister for Finance. He said there would not be a further budget.

I accept times change but we are all intelligent enough to be able to absorb honest language and commentary from the Government that makes sense. Stop trying to spin things. Stop trying to turn bad, difficult and in some cases wrong decisions into great things just by the use of words, as has been attempted in the last few minutes in this House, because they are not.

Is today the date on which the famous committee is due to report on bankers' salaries? I wonder what will emerge from that. I regret that the amendments introduced in the other House relating to the capping of salaries were not included in the legislation. I also regret that the legislation does not make it necessary for the Government to return to the Houses if it requires more than €7 billion. I will certainly support the amendments tabled by Senator Twomey that reflect the issues raised in the other House by my party.

I welcome the Minister of State. I would have seen the pension fund as our security or our inheritance. It is the last remaining morsel of the Celtic tiger economy. I regret that it is necessary to invest €3.5 billion each in AIB and Bank of Ireland. In view of the AIB figures released yesterday, I wonder if €3.5 billion will be enough, given our great expectation that this recapitalisation will keep the banks solvent and liquid. Does the Minister of State believe it will be enough?

Fine Gael has always agreed that the banks must be capitalised to maintain liquidity and solvency. My colleagues, Deputy Richard Bruton and Deputy Kieran O'Donnell, have agreed on this for a long time. Since last July our party has made very good suggestions and while I welcome the invitation to the Opposition parties to examine the books, some of those suggestions have fallen on deaf ears. This is particularly the case with the proposed good bank model, which is that we establish a good AIB and Bank of Ireland as well as a bad AIB and Bank of Ireland. The bad bank would effectively operate as a debt collection agency and no longer function as a commercial bank. This would allow the good bank to function and people could have confidence in it. The new bank would be seen as a new start and could take off with fresh investment.

A number of friends and elderly people have approached me expressing concern about where they should move their money. They are taking money from one bank and putting it into another. Elderly people, in particular, are experiencing severe anxiety. I fear people will start keeping money under their mattresses if the proposed new model, under which we would have a "good" and "bad bank", is not introduced. As to the question of how one would fund a bad bank, the new institution would be self-funding if it were to act as a debt collection agency.

I welcome the instrument introduced under section 12 on contracts of difference. We are all aware of the serious difficulties the Financial Regulator encountered with regard to a number of debtors of Anglo Irish Bank who were not obliged to disclose their dealings.

The Minister of State indicated the banks have committed to increasing lending capacity to small businesses and first-time buyers by 10% and 30%, respectively. Senators will have read reports published last week on a survey carried out by the Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association which found that 48% of the association's members had been refused credit by banks. I ask the Minister of State to ensure small and medium-size enterprises are guaranteed access to funding and bank credit.

Under the sound financial leadership of Deputies Bruton and O'Donnell, the Fine Gael Party has made a number of excellent suggestions, which I do not propose to repeat. The bottom line is that we need to obtain value for money for taxpayers who, after all, own the funds being used to recapitalise the banks. If the position of AIB is desperate, how will small and medium-size enterprises secure access to a flow of money?

Senator Butler, for whom I have great respect, indicated the State is investing in rather than bailing out the banks. We are being forced to bail out the banks. One invests €7 billion in a company with an expectation that one will get value for money and substantial rewards. I do not envisage the State being rewarded for bailing out the banks. In addition, an investment is a transaction in which one freely participates. This is not the case with this proposal. While I accept the necessity to recapitalise the banks, we must secure value for money for taxpayers and a guarantee that small and medium-size enterprises will have access to cash flow to allow them to operate their business, employ staff and get the economy rolling again.

What course of action will the Government adopt if, several months from now, AIB, Bank of Ireland or another bank decides to seek further money? This is a genuine concern. I wonder if €7 billion will be sufficient and, if not, what other resources are available to the State.

I welcome the Minister of State who appears to be the permanent Minister for the Seanad. While I respect the Minister of State's decision to attend this debate, the absence of his senior Minister reflects poorly on the Minister for Finance. I share Senator Alex White's view that the Minister of State is not one of the best spinners in Government. The senior Minister should have attended this debate to show respect for the House.

As Senator McFadden stated, we need banks and recapitalisation is, therefore, necessary. Senators may not like to hear it but the measures proposed in the Bill amount to another bail-out. We are back in GUBU territory, an area with which the Minister of State will be familiar. Senator Twomey asked a pertinent question to which we require an answer. What will be the impact of the Bill on the National Pensions Reserve Fund? The purpose of the fund is being changed. Are we selling the family silver or putting all our eggs in one basket?

I welcome the Minister of State's comments on liquidity and the provision of moneys for small and medium-size enterprises. I hope the banks will lend to these enterprises as liquidity will be vital for economic growth and ensuring the country emerges from recession. My understanding of the Minister of State's comments is that the Minister for Finance will be given carte blanche under the legislation. This is a matter of concern.

I ask the Minister of State to examine the issue of control. Why will the NPRF be unable to invest without first seeking Oireachtas or ministerial approval? Is the €7 billion we propose to invest in two banks sufficient or is the sum involved perhaps excessive? What are the views of the gurus on this matter?

I read commentary, listen to Ministers and note the contributions of Members from all sides on these issues. However, as a public representative who canvasses four days each week, I have not heard anything from the Government to reflect the anger of ordinary people or the fear of small business owners — restaurateurs, shop owners and trades people — with a staff of three or four who are struggling to survive and may go to the wall. Last Saturday, I met a 72 year old spinster, a former national school teacher, who lives alone and does not have family to care for her. Having bought shares in Bank of Ireland which are now virtually worthless, she is beside herself with worry. She did not invest because she was greedy or wanted to make a profit but because she wanted to have a nest egg. As she pointed out to me, she hoped to feel financially secure when she entered a nursing home.

As Senator McFadden noted, people are fearful. I reacted initially with disbelief and laughter when I learned that people were withdrawing money from banks. I have since had many calls from people who are fearful about their savings. This week, for instance, we heard news about a credit union.

Senator Twomey is correct that while politicians are pilloried, the financial institutions have done everyone a disservice. Positive action must be taken on the remuneration and bonuses of banking executives. People must also be held to account in the courts. I do not say this to play to the gallery. The people in question must be held to account and solutions must be provided. While I have no sympathy for those involved, unfortunately, decent, honourable people working behind the counters of banks — I visit my local bank every week — are being wrongly attacked by every Tom, Dick and Harry. We have clearly lost trust and faith in the financial institutions.

Are the 25% voting rights and the 25% shareholding the State may acquire as a result of recapitalisation sufficient? Given that the State will effectively own the banks, it should control them. The share prices of the banks have collapsed and the markets, as we saw this week, have nearly imploded. Do we have confidence, internationally and domestically, that we can overcome this? From talking to people across the USA and the UK, I know they are seriously concerned about regulation here. Will this Bill allow the banks to create liquidity for our small and medium-sized enterprises? The Government seems reluctant to take on board the suggestion of the European Commission about setting up a bad bank. I wonder why.

I am concerned that the 25% voting share is insufficient. We need to see the interests of the people reflected in the banks. Where will the 8% dividend go? I am afraid the banks will use the money they get from us now and carry on their merry way. That cannot happen.

I welcome the Minister back to the House and am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this issue. I support the recapitalisation of the banks. It is proper and fair that we have a strong banking sector. We need banks that will go down the road with a person who is willing to take a chance. Thus, we need strong banks and we need them to take chances on people. After all, self-employed people who are willing to invest and take a chance are living on their wits and they need strong banks behind them that are also willing to take a chance. That is why I support the recapitalisation.

Senator Hanafin said it was only right that the National Pensions Reserve Fund should be able to invest in our own country. This is true. Deputy Michael Noonan proposed this about seven years ago and I am delighted Fianna Fáil has now come around. The NPRF should invest in this country and if this had been arranged when Deputy Noonan proposed it, much of our infrastructure would now be supported by the NPRF. It would now be getting quite a return on its investments. It may well have purchased the toll roads, for instance. I support this measure and I am delighted to see the Government has come around to that way of thinking.

We need to spell out in simple language what is taking place and how the Government is recapitalising banks. The public is muddled about whether the Government is taking shares and what type of shares they are or whether the NPRF is investing money in the bank on behalf of the Government and getting a return of 8% annually. The Minister of State said in his speech:

Under the National Pensions Reserve Fund Act 2000, the commission is precluded from investing in Irish Government securities. Section 3 also contains a technical provision to clarify that the reference in the principal Act to "Irish Government securities" means debt instruments issued by the Exchequer.

What exactly does this mean? Is Anglo Irish Bank a debt instrument? The Government has invested in it. The public is not fully au fait — none of us is fully au fait — with what is happening.

I must also ask the Minister whether everything is in the open now. First, we had the guarantee scheme, then we had the nationalisation of Anglo Irish Bank and now we have the recapitalisation of AIB and Bank of Ireland. At every stage the Minister for Finance said this was for the sake of the markets. He stressed every time that he was making those decisions based on the markets. However, the markets nose-dived every time. They went straight down through the floor. Since he made his announcement last September, time after time the markets have gone through the floor. Is there anything else that is yet to come out? We are here on behalf of the taxpayer, giving power to the Minister for Finance to put the pensions and the future of our people into the banks. That is what we are doing. The Minister of State said we would get an 8% return. We are not sure whether we will get that, but the Minister of State suggests we will. The public needs to know whether there is any more bad news to come out. Are we at the bottom?

The Bill states that the National Pensions Reserve Fund can only invest in companies that are listed on the Stock Exchange. What is the position with EBS and Irish Nationwide, for example? If they require recapitalisation or an injection of capital, does that mean the NPRF cannot invest in them? Will the Minister for Finance have to dip into some other pot to get funding? Are there any limits on the amount of money the NPRF can invest? In giving power to the Minister to direct the NPRF to invest, are we giving him an open invitation to invest in any financial institution? Under the existing legislation, does the NPRF not have the power to invest in companies or is it prohibited from doing so because of what the Minister of State said in his speech about Government securities? Do we have to change this in the current legislation to give the fund that power? I may have some further questions on Committee Stage.

I thank Senators for a very good debate. I am not the Minister for Finance, but I will attempt to reply to the best of my ability to the points raised.

The Fine Gael spokesperson, Senator Twomey, raised the issue of due diligence. If I understand him correctly, he was referring not to due diligence with regard to the banks, which has been dealt with, but with regard to the original purpose of the pension fund, which was to disburse funds from 2025. Am I correct?

I will not delay the House talking about due diligence with regard to the banks. Obviously there is a degree of uncertainty in the projections for pension costs post-2025, which depend on demographic assumptions. The Department of Finance has published projections carried out by the long-term issues group, assisted by Alan Barrett at the ESRI. Such projections are kept under review and are inevitably changing. The major variables, of course, are net immigration and emigration over the next 20 years. Clearly, however, there is a degree of uncertainty in that regard. We are looking at a timeframe of 16 years if we set 2025 as the end year.

It is not accurate to speak about raiding the National Pensions Reserve Fund or selling the family silver because the returns from the investments in the banks will accrue to the fund. We hope to come through the current difficulties long before 2025. In the short term, the fund will earn 8%, which is an attractive rate of return in light of current market conditions. If the shares are not repaid within five years they will be valued at 125%. A balance must be found between the need to recapitalise the banks and preserving the integrity of the fund. We are maintaining the 1% contribution in addition to the 8% dividend. The warrants attached to the preference shares give the State the option to purchase 25% ordinary shares in five years' time at current prices. The Exchequer stands to gain, therefore.

In regard to drawing the Opposition into the decision making process, Opposition Members can at any time make suggestions or propose ideas. They are not under an obligation in this regard, however. The roles of Government and Opposition are equally honourable and the former has made it clear that, while it will take the necessary decisions, it would welcome the input of the latter. It has been the case since Dr. Garret FitzGerald was Taoiseach that the Department of Finance is available to Opposition Members to perform costings on a confidential basis.

Several Senators raised the question of bank salaries. A report by the covered institutions remuneration committee on the remuneration of bankers was handed to the Minister two days ago but he will need time to study it before bringing it before the Government. I am sure he will be making a statement on the matter shortly.

The issue of ministerial logistics was raised. It is not a simple matter to travel from A to B to C without losing an excessive amount of time. It is possible to travel using slow and cheap methods but much depends on the value attached to ministerial time. I am conscious of being as economical as possible in the fulfilment of my official functions.

Senator Twomey asked whether the differing amounts required in 2009 and 2010 implied a sharp regression in growth. The amount required for 2010 will be 1% of GNP, as forecast in the budget for that year, but we are front-loading €1.4 billion towards our requirements for that year. If, for example, €1.6 billion is required in 2010 a further contribution of €200 million will be necessary. There is no inherent implication in this of a worse than expected shortfall next year.

Senator Hanafin expressed his satisfaction that Irish investments are coming home. The investment mandate of the NPRF is to invest the assets of the fund with a view to achieving the optimal return, subject to a level of risk which is acceptable to the NPRF commission. This commercial investment mandate is similar to those of private sector pension funds. In seeking an optimal return, the commission is required to choose investments on the basis of what appears to offer the best prospect of return and it has absolute discretion in that regard. The commission has invested in Irish companies but in accordance with the mandate set out in legislation, the bulk of its investments are made abroad. It would not be possible to require that all investments be made in Ireland, any more than it would be proper to require Irish companies to invest exclusively at home. I take the Senator's point, however, and consider it a matter of finding a balance.

Senator Norris spoke about the activities of London-based hedge funds and commentary on the Irish economy. The Government is determined to do what is necessary to overcome the difficulties in the banking sector and the national finances. One cannot help but note that nearly every country, and certainly Britain, is grappling with the same problems.

Officials in the Department of Finance hold a broad range of qualifications, including economics and business-related degrees. Over the years, many civil servants have taken evening courses to gain such qualifications. Economics formed part of the studies for my degree but the vast bulk of my practical knowledge was learned over the past 34 years as a public servant in various capacities. The Department can draw on the practical experience of bodies such as the National Treasury Management Agency, which has strong experience in markets, the NPRF, which employs highly qualified staff with a broad range of experience, and the ESRI in respect of economic analysis.

The EU, the OECD and other bodies are taking a co-ordinated approach in responding to various aspects of the current crisis. On the ultimate consequence of the bank crisis, no more than other Members, I do not have a crystal ball. Several Senators asked if the current recapitalisation is enough. It is sufficient for now. Obviously, there is capacity in the Bill to take further action should it prove necessary. There is a limitation, in terms of bank confidentiality, to the degree to which one can open bank books to the general gaze of the public. While there are reports on the matter, one needs maximum transparency consistent with confidentiality in order to carry out bank activities.

The Minister has referred to Peter Bacon the question of whether it is a good idea to establish a toxic bank, an issue being examined by other Governments. Reference was made to the excesses of builders and banks. However, the vast majority of construction activity that took place in this country during the past ten or 15 years has been beneficial. Building firms should not be necessarily attacked in a blanket manner. Similarly the thousands of people, not on particularly high salaries and working in the banks, should be respected and not be held responsible for the banking crisis.

Senator Butler asked about a national bond. The National Treasury Management Agency is responsible for the management of debt. There are plenty of opportunities to support the Exchequer including, for institutions, normal bond insurance and for individuals, small savings products including savings bonds and certificates, prize bonds and so on. There is concern in regard to an excessive deflection of funds from banks to small savings products and as such there is some reluctance to encourage a national bond.

Senator Alex White questioned the use of the National Pensions Reserve Fund to address the recapitalisation issue. Despite the original purpose of the fund, the Oireachtas has the power to change legislation should it prove necessary. The clauses contained in the original Bill were to ensure the purpose could not be changed without reference to the Oireachtas. I must point out that the Labour Party was, for a number of years, pressing Government to use the National Pensions Reserve Fund to fund all sorts of domestic capital projects under the capital programme and the national development plan. Effectively, it wanted the Government to spend some of the money saved. It is a little ironic that Senator White is now calling on the Government to do due diligence in terms of the effect of recapitalisation on the National Pensions Reserve Fund. I do not recall the Labour Party's proposals requiring that the fund be accompanied by any due diligence on its effect on pensions from 2025.

Senator White also said this legislation is the ninth measure. In my speech in the Dáil last night, I stated that we have been engaged in crisis management since last July and in particular since the autumn, as have most other Governments. One of the features of crisis management is that crises take twists and turns requiring one to continue to address problems until matters are stabilised. In the case of AIG, the US Administration has had to revisit that issue three times.

I will not outline in detail the recapitalisation issue as that has been done many times. However, the recapitalisation package includes specific measures requiring the banks to support small and medium enterprises and relating to mortgages. Senator Buttimer referred to GUBU and 1982, a year I recall well, politically. The character of the current crisis has nothing in common with the events of that year.

Senators asked if I can give a guarantee there is no more bad news to come. It would be absurd for me or any Minister to give that type of guarantee. That is not a reasonable request. I take on board Senator Buttimer's point in regard to the anger and dismay of people, not least those people who invested in bank shares. Up to a couple of years ago bank shares, more than property — I am speaking in this regard of our main banks — were viewed as the ultimate in safe investment. I am aware of charitable trusts and so on that had their savings almost exclusively invested in bank shares as they had a good record of appreciation, supplied a good income and paid handsome dividends. It is unfortunate that that situation has changed.

It is partly out of regard for those shareholders, and for other reasons, that the Government has not nationalised banks without necessity. If the banks, which should in better conditions be inherently profitable and up until recently have been so, manage to get over the current problems then, presumably, bank shares will again eventually increase in value and all will not be lost. It would be bleak for those shareholders if shares not alone lost the vast majority of their value but the situation was irrecoverable, which is what nationalising the banks would do.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and Members of the House for their patience. I hope I have responded to the points raised.

Perhaps the Minister of State will respond to the question in regard to Irish Nationwide.

Senator Burke referred to the credit institutions not listed on the Stock Exchange, notably EBS and Irish Nationwide. The Government announced proposals for the recapitalisation of the two main banks and it nationalised Anglo Irish Bank. It has announced that it is in discussions with the other institutions covered by the deposit guarantees, Irish Life & Permanent, EBS and INBS, concerning their respective capital positions and review of the guarantee scheme.

There are several options available if further funds are needed to recapitalise the banks. It would be possible to invest Exchequer moneys directly under the Credit Institutions Financial Support Act 2008. It would be possible to provide moneys from the Exchequer to the NPRF commission for investment in a listed credit institution under this Bill and it would also be possible under this Bill for the Minister for Finance to direct the commission to invest in a listed credit institution from its own funds.

Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 14.

  • Brady, Martin.
  • Butler, Larry.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Cannon, Ciaran.
  • Carty, John.
  • Cassidy, Donie.
  • Corrigan, Maria.
  • Daly, Mark.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Feeney, Geraldine.
  • Glynn, Camillus.
  • Hanafin, John.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • MacSharry, Marc.
  • Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
  • Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
  • O’Brien, Francis.
  • O’Malley, Fiona.
  • O’Sullivan, Ned.
  • O’Toole, Joe.
  • Ormonde, Ann.
  • Phelan, Kieran.
  • White, Mary M.
  • Wilson, Diarmuid.

Níl

  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Burke, Paddy.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Coghlan, Paul.
  • Cummins, Maurice.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • McFadden, Nicky.
  • Norris, David.
  • O’Reilly, Joe.
  • Regan, Eugene.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Twomey, Liam.
  • White, Alex.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Diarmuid Wilson and Camillus Glynn; Níl, Senators Maurice Cummins and Liam Twomey.
Question declared carried.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Sitting suspended at 2.05 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Top
Share