Deputy Michael O'Kennedy has been given permission to put a question on private notice to the Minister for the Environment.
Private Notice Question. - Building Society Take-Over.
asked the Minister for the Environment to explain why in the national interest he is not taking appropriate action to prevent the take-over of the Irish Civil Service Building Society by the Bank of Ireland.
I submitted this question to the Minister for Finance and it was transferred to the Minister for the Environment.
Following careful consideration of the issues involved in this development, the Government have concluded that the public interest and the orderly and proper regulation of building society business would best be served by the mutualisation of the Irish Civil Service Building Society on the basis already operating in all other building societies. Details of the legislative provisions required to bring this about are being finalised urgently and will be announced as soon as possible.
I welcome what the Minister has said but would he agree that it would have been very desirable to have done this earlier as I suggested on at least three occasions in this House? The action that the Government now propose to adopt is the amendment of the 1976 legislation to provide for the mutualisation of the Irish Civil Service Building Society, but would it not have been better to prevent all of the speculation and the acquisition of shares by the bank in the meantime? I hope that the action to be taken from now on will be more effective and expeditious than what we have seen over the last weeks.
The parties concerned were at no stage left in doubt that this matter impinged on the public interest and raised policy issues of important concern to the Government. The legal and other issues involved were complex and were compounded by the unique shareholding structure of the ICS. It would have been wrong in the circumstances for the Government to have reacted without due consideration of all the factors involved.
Of course the issues are complex and it would be wrong for the Government to act without due consideration. At the same time, I think I am right to point out that we pointed out these very issues——
A question.
Will the Minister acknowledge that these very issues were pointed out and the action that the Government now propose to take was proposed by me here five or six weeks ago? Is the Minister satisfied that constitutional implications will be involved in this matter also and, if so, can he indicate what they might be?
I would not agree that there was any undue delay. As I said, the Government found that very complex issues were involved and, therefore, consideration was necessary, not just reaction to a suggestion by the Deputy. I am not prepared to comment on the latter part of the question. What we are doing is being done in the public interest, and clearly it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment on the latter part of the question.
I acknowledge the fact that it is in the public interest and my question is framed on that basis, but that does not exclude the Minister from saying if there are constitutional implications. That is not an answer at all. I am asking the Minister if he is aware of the fact and if he has received advice that there are constitutional implications. If not, fine. If so, will he please indicate whether it is so?
Constitutional issues may be involved on this issue, but surely any legislation brought in has constitutional issues and nobody can deny that. I do not propose to go into constitutional issues on the question put to me. I think I have answered the question quite adequately.
Can the Minister give an assurance to the House that the conditions and the criteria under which the other building societies are obliged to operate will be adhered to strictly by the ICS in their dealing with borrowers from their institution in the future?
I am not going to allow a Second Reading debate on legislation that is not before the House.