It is proposed to take No. 22, Budget Statement and the financial motions by the Minister for Finance, at 3.45 p.m. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. and the motion for the general financial resolution shall be moved not later than 12 midnight whereupon business shall then be interrupted and the Dáil shall adjourn forthwith; following the Budget Statement of the Minister for Finance, the following arrangements shall apply in relation to the proceedings on No. 22: the statements of the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and Sinn Féin shall not exceed 45 minutes; following the statements the sitting shall be suspended for 30 minutes; Private Members' business this week, which shall be No. 49 — motion re farm waste management scheme, shall be taken on Thursday, 16 October 2008, after the Order of Business and shall be brought to a conclusion after three hours on that day, if not previously concluded; all divisions demanded on No. 22 shall be taken manually; and there shall be no Order of Business, that is, within the meaning of Standing Order 26, tomorrow and the business to be transacted shall be No. 22, financial motions by the Minister for Finance, motion No. 15 resumed, and the following arrangements shall apply: the speech of the Taoiseach and of the main spokespersons, or a member nominated in his or her stead for the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed 40 minutes in each case and the speech of each other Member called upon, who may share time, shall not exceed 30 minutes in each case.
Order of Business.
There are five proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 22, Budget Statement and the financial motions by the Minister for Finance, agreed?
Will the 30-minute suspension present an opportunity for the Whips to group the various divisions in blocks so we will know how many votes there will be?
I understand that is the normal procedure. Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' business agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with divisions demanded on No. 22 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal that there shall be no Order of Business tomorrow and for dealing with No. 22, financial motions by the Minister for Finance, agreed?
Why are we not having an Order of Business tomorrow? I understand the Taoiseach has to go to Brussels and will give some pre-explanation to Government leaders tomorrow and on Thursday. Is it the Government's wish that we should proceed straight to the budget debate?
On the fact that there will be no Order of Business tomorrow, will the Taoiseach clarify when it is intended to reveal the vital detail on the out-working and implementation of the measures flowing from the recent legislation on credit institutions, brought forward by the Minister for Finance? Will it be part of the proposals to be addressed in the coming days? Last week it was signalled it would be addressed tomorrow.
The Opposition was very accommodating to the Government in various ways arising from the crisis in the banking industry and the required bail-out legislation. On that basis, the Order of Business was shifted around and changed, by agreement. There is no reason in the world not to have a full Order of Business tomorrow, which is an ordinary working day of the Dáil. We now have agreement that the bail-out legislation or conditions thereof will be before the House on Friday. The situation changed over the week.
As far as I understand it, there is agreement between the Whips not to have an Order of Business tomorrow for the good reason that we want to give an opportunity to party leaders, including myself, to give a statement to the House on the budget. A European Council meeting will take place tomorrow which the Minister for Finance and I must attend. We will have Leaders' Questions tomorrow morning and we are agreeing the Order of Business now for tomorrow. It should not be contentious.
On the guarantee scheme being brought to the House for approval by way of motion, I understand the detail of that is being worked out. The Whips intend to agree to have that business dealt with on Friday. It is important that it is addressed this week and it would all for the budget debate in the meantime. I do not believe it is possible to deal with the guarantee scheme on Thursday because the Minister for Finance may not be back on time.
On a point of clarification——
There can be no point of clarification because under Standing Orders we cannot have a second intervention on this matter.
When will the Order Paper——
I must ask whether the fifth proposal is agreed. The Deputy can raise the matter on the Order of Business. Is the proposal agreed? Agreed.
I accept the Taoiseach must attend the European Council meeting tomorrow and I understand the Government wishes to deal with the guarantee scheme from 10.30 a.m. until 3.30 p.m. or 4 p.m. on Friday. There are six financial institutions included in the original guarantee and there are a number of others that have non-national parent bodies but have significant high-street operations in Ireland. There may well be 11 different schemes — I do not know at present — but it is very important that the detail of the proposed scheme is circulated as quickly as possible so Members can put together a coherent response thereto and reflect on the questions that will arise therefrom. When can the detail of the scheme be given to members of the Opposition so we can read and analyse it and make our comments on it?
We can make arrangements for this to be done as quickly as possible. As the Deputy said, the Cabinet met this morning to approve the scheme, which sets out the detail arising from the legislation that was passed last week. We will arrange for that to be forwarded in good time so Members can examine it.
When?
I thank the Taoiseach for that. I hope it will not be done on Thursday evening or Thursday night.
No.
Has consideration be given under the scheme to the significant talk around the place that the Irish Government may have to capitalise elements of the Irish banking system by borrowing?
That will have to be dealt with on Friday. I call Deputy Gilmore.
It is an important question and the Taoiseach wants to answer it.
There will be a debate on the scheme.
On the bank bailout scheme, I understand from the Taoiseach the scheme was approved by the Cabinet this morning. First, can he tell us when the scheme will be circulated to the Opposition parties? It is two weeks since the legislation was introduced and we would like to know that. This is not something we can simply walk into on Friday without having had ample opportunity to consider it. Second, what format will the debate take on Friday? Will there be an opportunity for amendments to the scheme to be tabled? Will there be an opportunity for the Minister to be questioned and for the details of the scheme to be fully teased through? Third, have any changes been made to the scheme as originally envisaged arising from the meeting of the leaders of the eurozone countries at the weekend?
I will arrange for the scheme to be circulated to the spokespersons tomorrow so they will have plenty of detail before Friday. As the Deputy will understand, the Department of Finance will be busy today with the budget, but we will arrange for it to be forwarded tomorrow.
With regard to Deputy Gilmore's question on the parameters of the scheme, the basic scheme has not changed in any significant way from that which was forwarded to the European Union. Obviously, on the question of the inclusion of other non-domiciled subsidiaries, the extra category has been included to satisfy requirements. It was under consideration, as the Deputy knows, before we forwarded the draft scheme to Europe and, in any event, it would obviously be included there. The scheme was worked through and a very constructive dialogue took place. The basic parameters of the scheme are not different from what was indicated by the Minister for Finance during the passage of the legislation through the House with regard to its conditionality or scope.
The scheme has got clearance from the Directorate General for Competition of the European Union under Commissioner Kroes. I take this opportunity to thank her and her staff, as well as our own officials, the Attorney General and others who worked very hard in what is a complex area to have this scheme available to us absolutely as quickly as possible and in a way that meets European Union requirements. On that basis, this is the scheme that has passed muster with the European Union in terms of meeting those requirements and, therefore, I could not envisage a situation where we would take amendments to the scheme and put at risk the compliance we have achieved as a result of the detailed technical and other discussions that took place. We will put this by way of positive motion and I understand the Minister for Finance will be available in a question and answer session to clarify any aspect beyond the debate itself that Deputies would have in regard to the scheme.
Deputy Kenny raised an important point, on which I wish to comment. We took action a couple of weeks ago to give a full guarantee in respect of all deposits and liabilities in the banks. We took a system-wide approach, which has been taken up by others since then. What is under discussion in terms of the tool kit, in other words the range of options available, as decided at the eurozone meeting on Sunday, relates to a partial guarantee of debt, not a full guarantee. It is not on all fours in that respect with what we did. Recapitalisation is an option for those who want to take action in the future also. I am pleased there is acceptance within the European Union of the action we took and the scheme now being passed by the European Union. There is acceptance that the specific action we took was necessary in the circumstances we faced at the time. We did what we believed was in the national interest to maintain the financial stability of the institutions in the State.
It is important to point out that there are two ways of providing liquidity. The problem as we know has been the question of wholesale inter-bank rates and the fact that money was not available in the system in the normal way in which business is conducted within the banking system. Liquidity can be provided in several ways. One way to provide it, which has succeeded in our case in the present situation — we cannot predict how all of this will evolve, as we still have not seen turbulence in the financial markets recede to normalcy yet — is to provide a full system-wide guarantee. If other states want to provide liquidity in their circumstances by providing a partial guarantee together with a recapitalisation option, it is a matter for them. It is totally within their remit and I respect what they see as the right thing to do in their circumstances.
It is important to point out that although the Irish banking system has problems it is not susceptible to sub-prime debt, which was syndicated into other banking systems, including banks in other countries. Those debts are coming to maturity now and as they do not have a value, they have to be marked down immediately, which perhaps brought about the requirement for immediate recapitalisation in those situations. Irish banks are not in that situation. The capital adequacy ratio of Irish banks is good and is well beyond the European Union requirement of 8%. I understand it is in the region of 11%. The capital base in Irish banks could be anything up to €242 billion.
It is important that we make those points. Every country has its own set of circumstances with which to deal. The tool kit arrangement in respect of the European Union-wide scheme that has been agreed is not mandatory, time limited or time required for countries. While the recapitalisation option can be valid in any country in certain circumstances, it increases the exposure of taxpayers in a way that the guarantee scheme does not, given that one does not have to put money up front or provide equity capital for the institutions. Through the regulatory system that we are now devising for the guarantee scheme, there are many ways we can provide means by which we can assist capital being made available to the institutions from private sources, which the European Union scheme states is the preference in any event.
While I have not ruled anything in or out — it is not good to speculate in these matters — I make the point that there are differentiations in terms of the Irish system. As Deputy Kenny suggested, there has been some contention in the Irish discussion of the issue, that there is an immediate requirement for the Government to do something in respect of recapitalisation. That is not the point since we have given a system-wide guarantee that has provided the necessary liquidity, and the time and space to see what way we envisage the Irish banking system develop from here.
Will the Taoiseach confirm if the detail of the regulations for the Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act will be circulated to all Opposition party spokespersons tomorrow, as was signalled? The Taoiseach indicated that the detail of the outworking will be addressed by motion on Friday. I presume amendments are acceptable if Members wish to table them and if this is not the case, can the Taoiseach clarify what exactly is the position? Will we see a straight proposition that is either "aye" or "nay"? Will we have the opportunity to make arguments or will they be disallowed because of the financial implications, as is so often the case in these matters? Will the Taoiseach spell out the outworking of this for Friday's session?
The Minister for Finance appealed to the various financial institutions to ensure that the full 0.5% decrease in the European Central Bank rate is passed on. Will the Taoiseach indicate if the Government will ensure that the lending institutions directly under its aegis, namely, the local authorities which are lenders and providers of house purchase loans to a significant body of borrowers, will do so? Such people could not qualify for mortgages on the open, commercial market and are among those dependent on the lowest incomes. Can the Taoiseach indicate to the House that he is taking steps to ensure this is the case?
Lastly, in the context of the ever deteriorating situation in the health services in the north east, is there——
That is the end of that. Some leeway was allowed on the banking situation for obvious reasons——
If the Ceann Comhairle lived in the north east, he would not dismiss it as being unimportant.
The Deputy is the epitome of the saying: "Give him an inch and he will take a yard."
Whatever the budget has to offer, the people in the north east——
The Deputy is stretching beyond a yard. I call the Taoiseach on the scheme.
——will still have to contend with HSE cutbacks, prior to what might be yet more cuts following the budget this afternoon. Is the Taoiseach prepared to revisit the legislative arrangements for the HSE?
I made the point to previous Deputies that, after much detailed work consistent with the legislation passed in the House, we have a State guarantee scheme for the financial institutions that comes under the schedule in a way that complies with EU competition law. We do not wish to put this at risk. Even with the most honourable of intentions, people putting and taking amendments could lead to them going back and finding there is another problem. The priority accorded by the House last week was to get the scheme to the House as quickly as possible. This has now been done and because of the budget today and the European Council meeting in Brussels tomorrow, we will have it in the House on Friday. We need to get it passed and to ensure it is in compliance with the law and we need to get on with the work. Obviously, discussing it in the House provides an opportunity for people to make their views known and ask whatever questions they wish of the Minister on its passing, not on its being changed, amended and referred back. With respect, we do not have that luxury.
On the question regarding local authorities, such loans are specific. They have the backing of the Government in any event. There are fixed loans which remain fixed, and if there are variable loans which, under the terms are allowed to vary, then they take interest rate increases and interest rate decreases according as the market allows.
I am concerned about one thing the Taoiseach said. This scheme and its functioning has profound implications. Will the Taoiseach ensure that the details of the scheme are furnished to every Member of the House tomorrow, not just to the financial spokespeople?
Yes.
The Taoiseach made several very interesting statements when replying earlier. He may have clarified it in his last reply, but I wish to be absolutely sure of it. Do I understand correctly that the Minister for Finance will respond to questions from Members of the House during the course of the debate on Friday? That is my first question. Second, this is a legislative Assembly in which Deputies decide what the laws of the country will be. The Government motion that will come before the House on Friday is basically about making law in respect of the banking bail-out scheme. I understand from what the Taoiseach has said that it is not open to the House to amend that proposed law because the Government has concluded negotiations with the EU Commission in respect of it. I respectfully submit that the EU Commission has no legislative role in making laws for this country.
Hear, hear.
It is a matter for this legislative Assembly. I do not understand the constitutional basis for the Taoiseach's comment that as the Government has, in effect, concluded an agreement with the EU Commission on the guarantee scheme, it is not open to this sovereign Parliament to amend the scheme when it comes before this House on Friday. I would like the Taoiseach to respond to that point.
On the same issue, there is scope for further consideration by the Whips of the possibility of arranging a committee-style discussion on this issue. People who might like to ask questions as part of such a debate might not get an opportunity to do so if the discussion were to be along the lines of a Second Stage debate. I differ from Deputy Gilmore on this point. As the legislation has been passed by the Dáil and the Seanad and signed by the President, it is now the law. That Act of Parliament authorises the Government to introduce a scheme. The scheme in question has received the approval of the European Commission. Therefore, from a technical perspective, this House will be asked to accept or reject the scheme on Friday. That is my understanding of it. I thank the Taoiseach for clarifying that the Government does not intend, at this point, to put up borrowings from the taxpayer as capitalisation for any financial institution.
In response to Deputy Gilmore, I agree with what the Leader of the Opposition has said. We have passed the law. The legislation on this matter has been discussed and passed by this House.
Why are we coming back to it on Friday?
We are coming back to it because the Minister accepted an amendment in an effort to be accommodating. He was trying to reciprocate the accommodation he was receiving here. He agreed to ensure that the scheme would come back to the House for its approval. We will either approve it or we will not.
We could amend it.
No. I am sorry. The amendments were considered during the debate on the legislation. We have had that debate. The EU is not legislating for this House. I am glad to say the EU has been accommodating in respect of the Irish requirements. It has ensured that the scheme we have devised will enable us to put in place a State guarantee. Such a guarantee is critical to the continuing liquidity of the Irish banking system, in difficult circumstances which have not gone away. This House has a responsibility to bring certainty and clarity to that matter as quickly as possible, in line with the wish of this House expressed last week. That is the situation.
The motion to be considered by this House on Friday will relate to the scheme as approved and agreed by the Minister, on behalf of the Government, the Commissioner and the officials working on it. The details of the scheme will be laid before the House as an act of further accountability. Under the legislation that was passed last week, the Minister is authorised to devise and conclude such a scheme. That is all provided for. There is a legal basis for all of this. Detailed arrangements for how the debate will be conducted can be worked out. It is obvious that people will give their views on the scheme, in the first instance. In an effort to be accommodating, the Minister is making himself available for a question and answer session. He will listen to everyone's point of view. We will have from 10.30 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Friday to go through it. That is eminently sensible and fair.
Three Members are offering. I hope to suspend the sitting for a short period in advance of the Budget Statement.
Can the Taoiseach arrange the introduction of the promised legislation to amend the Foreshore Act 1933? Such a Bill is urgently needed in view of the outstanding applications for offshore wind energy developments. I understand that approximately €6 billion is waiting to be invested. According to the legislative programme that has been circulated by the Government Chief Whip, the legislation is not expected for a number of months, if not years. We will lose the investment I mentioned if the Bill is not introduced soon.
I understand Deputy Barrett's interest in this area as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security. I assure him that the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources is concerned to deal with the legal complexities in relation to foreshore matters. He is trying to develop a modern statutory framework that meets the business requirements of the sustainable energy industry. The Deputy will agree that the Minister has a particular interest in that industry. He is doing all he can to draft that legislation and subsequently to introduce it. I understand it might not be introduced this year. Hopefully it will be introduced in the new year.
It will be too late.
I am giving the Deputy the information. The Minister is working very hard to deal with this matter as a priority.
The Government's legislative programme states that it is not possible to indicate when the human tissue Bill, which will implement the recommendations of the Madden report on practices and procedures to be followed during post mortem examinations, will be introduced. I assume the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that we do not have further scandals in this regard. We are aware that some unethical members of the medical profession retained organs during post mortem examinations without the consent of the victims of the deceased. Can the Taoiseach advise the House of the reason for the delay with the Bill? Why is it not listed as a priority? When will it be published?
As the Deputy knows, the Department of Health and Children has a large legislative workload. The House has been awaiting the introduction of the fair deal scheme, which is a matter of priority, for some time. The heads of the Bill referred to by the Deputy were agreed last month. It is obvious that work is continuing on the detailed drafting of the Bill. I cannot give a date for when it will be taken. I cannot say what level of priority is being given to it at the moment.
The House approved the Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act 2008 two weeks ago. It has since been approved by the European Commission. The normal procedure is that——
We have moved on from that legislation.
I would like to clarify this point.
It is a pity the Deputy did not indicate when we were having that discussion.
A directive is normally issued by the European Commission before being transposed into law, with amendments, by the parliament of each member state. In this case, the scheme has been agreed by the Government and the Commission. It will come before this House for the first time on Friday. Surely the principle that applies when directives are being transposed — this House has the power to make adjustments according to Ireland's needs as a member state — should apply in this instance. That is what happens right across the board, in the case of all legislation that comes from the Commission to member states. I ask for clarification in that regard.
My second point relates to the Taoiseach, who is attending a European Council meeting for the first time in Brussels tomorrow. He will set out Ireland's proposals in the aftermath of the Lisbon treaty referendum earlier this year. It would be too much to expect to be given a preview of those proposals at this stage. Can he give us some idea of the thrust of the remarks he will make to the Heads of State tomorrow?
We cannot go into that now. That is not in order on the Order of Business.
Will time be made available next week to discuss the European Council meeting?
As I said earlier in response to Deputy Costello's party leader, a motion relating to the guarantee scheme will be proposed for the approval of the House later this week. The motion is being introduced on foot of an amendment to primary legislation that was passed in the House recently. In light of the importance of the matter, and the need to bring clarity and certainty to the issue, the motion needs to be taken on Friday without further amendment. I would have thought we should not jeopardise the approval we have received from the European Commission by amending the scheme at this stage. I am giving an undertaking that the parameters of the scheme are broadly in line with what we discussed during the debate on the legislation and will further discuss on Friday. Everyone will have ample opportunity to ask whatever questions they wish about the scheme. Deputies will be able to decide whether they wish to vote for its approval.
The Deputy also asked about tomorrow's European Council meeting. It will be my second time to attend such a meeting as Taoiseach. As I agreed to do at the Council meeting in June, I will furnish a progress report on the aftermath of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty referring to the fact that a parliamentary committee has been set up that will report before the December Council meeting on how it sees things proceeding. The Government will also engage with the French Presidency.
Is it intended to introduce earlier than expected the Bill to consolidate and modernise financial services legislation in accordance with the Government's better regulation agenda? It was promised for some time in the future. Since it is imperative that such a Bill should be brought before the House as a matter or urgency, will the Taoiseach indicate whether he intends to do that? Will he also indicate to the House the current status of the legislation affecting the estate management agencies? This has been promised for some time and we may need to revisit it now.
I understand the Attorney General is considering whether the second Bill to which the Deputy refers can be taken as one compendium Bill, rather than a series of Bills. There is no date fixed for the first Bill mentioned by the Deputy.
Will it not be urgent?
I call Deputy Lynch.
The last list of legislation contained the mental capacity Bill, which was to allow people with an intellectual disability to give evidence in court cases where they are the victim. It seems to have slipped off the list and I wonder whether it will be dealt with at all. It is urgent.
It is more than likely that it will be the middle of next year before that Bill will be taken.