Micheál Martin
Ceist:1Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if there were any retired officials in his Department re-employed even on a short term basis; if so, the reasons for same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25060/12]
Ceisteanna - Questions (Resumed)
Departmental Staff
Gerry Adams
Ceist:2Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if his Department has re-employed any retired civil servants; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30544/12]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
No retired civil servants have been re-employed by my Department. One person who previously retired from a different part of the public service is employed in an unestablished position by my Department. The employment contract of the person concerned will cease when my term of office as Taoiseach ends.
I accept the Taoiseach's reply. Does he accept there is a broad principle across the public service that, where possible, those who have retired should not be re-employed and that opportunities should be given to younger people and those seeking jobs for the first time to gain experience and opportunities?
I do, of course, accept that principle. It is only right and proper that where young people have the qualifications and the opportunity, they should be given it. Information received by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform shows the number of re-engagements of retired civil servants at 850 for 2010, 767 for 2011, and 70 for 2012. In implementing the principle that I stand by, that should happen where it is possible. Deputy Martin will understand that some retired public servants have a particular specialty and they are often brought back on a specific contract, as distinct from being employed again on the basis of having retired and drawing a pension. I accept the principle and, in so far as we can, we implement it.
I raised previously the issue in the context of the health service that those who have been re-employed on contracts have arrangements that allow them not to pay tax in this country. I refer to arrangements that allowed them to operate companies in the United Kingdom from which their services were then provided for the Minister for Health. This pertains to the advisers who had been recruited. It was reported some time ago in The Sunday Business Post - I raised this issue with the Taoiseach - that people were being employed as advisers to the Minister for Health but through companies located in the United Kingdom and that in consequence they, apparently, were legally avoiding the necessity to pay tax in this country. This causes difficulties in terms of-----
There may be a slight difference in this regard. The persons employed by the Minister for Health have a specific competence and expertise and are employed not as advisers but as consultants to the special delivery unit.
They were called "advisers" originally.
In addition, during a previous Question Time, I made the point to the Deputy that last January, before the exit from the public service took place at the end of February, the Government had made arrangements, for instance, in respect of leaving and junior certificate examination classes. Because of the bond between teachers and pupils, those teachers who had chosen to leave the public service at the end of February were able to be re-employed until the aforementioned classes completed their examinations.
That was practical.
For the Deputy's information, 254 such teachers retired during that grace period and were re-engaged in secondary schools because of that bond and for that purpose.
I welcome the Taoiseach's statement and consider it to be progress that the figures for retired public servants who have been re-employed in State employment have been decreasing. However, a figure of 850 still constitutes 850 too many, given current unemployment rates. I note that it was revealed last week that rules aimed at curtailing the amounts retired public service staff could earn if they returned to State employment were not applied if such individuals' services were provided through employment agencies. Is this the case and does it affect, for example, the single person employed in the Taoiseach's Department? Is the introduction of rules to prevent this from recurring planned or anticipated?
The principle is that when public servants retire, the opportunity to take up that employment should be given to younger people. The person employed in my Department worked in the Defence Forces for a period and was not at the normal retirement age. The person concerned is employed in an unestablished position in my Department and that contract will end when my contract as Taoiseach ends.
Departmental Records
Micheál Martin
Ceist:3Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the reason that records in relation to the banking guarantee were inappropriately shredded in his Department; the date on which he was informed of same; if he had this matter investigated; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30307/12]
Micheál Martin
Ceist:4Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the reason that records of the banking guarantee decision were shredded; the person who informed him of same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30308/12]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:5Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach the circumstances in which documents related to the bank guarantee were shredded in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34958/12]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, together.
I take it the Deputies' questions arise from my remarks in the House on 12 June when I was critical of the previous Government's handling of the decision-making process in the run-up to and on the night of the bank guarantee. I continue to have these concerns which I believe to be well founded and widely shared. My remarks were intended to highlight the remarkably small volume of documentation held in the Department of the Taoiseach from the night of the bank guarantee, which bears out these widely held concerns. I did not intend to suggest I had evidence the documentation relating to the bank guarantee had been destroyed or otherwise removed. I have since clarified the position on the record of the House in response to a question from Deputy Michael McGrath.
The Taoiseach's reply is unacceptable and he should stop trying to walk away from his own words. The only possible construction on what the Taoiseach said is he believed records might have been shredded. It is the only reason he would have said it. He has been in sole charge of Government Buildings since early last year and it is unacceptable to throw out conspiracies like a man standing at the bar in a pub. It is beneath his office and he should have the decency to withdraw his statement fully and without equivocation.
In addition, the Taoiseach is oversimplifying a serious decision on a bank guarantee for which he and his party voted. To quote him at the time, they did so "in the interests of the country, in the interests of protecting our economy and to protect the interests of our taxpayers." This is the precise reason the previous Government made the decision itself. I do not know why the Taoiseach-----
Can we have a question, please?
-----deliberately articulated the view that documents had been shredded. However, he decided to invent a wild allegation.
It might not be so wild.
All the officials and information have been available to him since he took over as Taoiseach at the start of 2011. It did not happen straightaway and this came out at a particular point in time. The Taoiseach was making a cynical political attack that was unworthy of him-----
Sorry, Deputy, this is Question Time.
I ask the Taoiseach whether he accepts this to be the case.
Honest to God, I am amused by the Deputy. What I said on 12 June was:
It is either shredded or has been disposed of or dispatched of - in other words, the Government has no evidence of the discussion that took place or of what Deputy Martin said when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs.
The Deputy might help the Government in that regard.
Where was the Deputy?
He was the Minister who dropped the Travers report behind the radiator and could not find it for many years.
Did the Taoiseach shred the advice he received to vote for the guarantee? He must have because he cannot get an explanation.
If the Taoiseach of the day meets a group from Deputy Peter Mathews's constituency, Deputy Micheál Martin can be sure that whatever it is about, notes will be taken and be there for posterity.
The Taoiseach has no faith in his own staff.
I find it incredible that Deputy Micheál Martin should make such a political charge in this Chamber because his name is on the incorporeal list of Ministers.
Perhaps he might tell the House where he was or whether he asked any questions in this regard when he was contacted. Did he attend those meetings at which banks gave evidence? What did he contribute to the rationale which led to the decision on that night?
He pressed the snooze button.
What about the Taoiseach? He advised his party.
I find it incredible that the Department of the Taoiseach does not have a single solitary slip of evidence, paper, about any of these discussions or the rationale that resulted in the incorporeal decision being made in the manner it was. Perhaps Deputy Micheál Martin might enlighten the House because I have looked behind the radiators in the Department of the Taoiseach-----
The Taoiseach was at summit meetings.
-----and no report has been dropped behind them in the way he did when he previously was in charge of a Department.
Perhaps Deputy Barry Cowen might ask his brother.
Perhaps one might ask the Minister's brother. What advice did the Minister receive to vote for it?
With respect, the Travers report was not behind any radiator but was published. It vindicated my role in that issue and was debated in the Oireachtas. Moreover, I appeared before an Oireachtas committee without difficulty and dealt with every single question asked. It did not go anywhere behind the radiator. However, my position is well known. The Taoiseach creates innuendo with the manner of his approach to this matter with comments such as "documents must have been shredded" or "where were you on the night" and so on.
Can we have a question, please?
Where was Deputy Micheál Martin?
Where was he?
It is well known: I was in the United States as Minister for Foreign Affairs and participated in the incorporeal meeting. That is a matter of public record and it was covered in a major programme broadcast on RTE months ago. There is no secret or mystery about it. Moreover, there was a Cabinet meeting the following morning at which it was discussed.
What did the Deputy say at the meeting?
Moreover, as the then Leader of the Opposition, the Taoiseach had plenty of time to obtain independent advice-----
May we have a question, please?
-----between the Cabinet decision and the decision of the Oireachtas to pass legislation introducing the bank guarantee. Did the Taoiseach receive independent advice? He voted for the measure and led his party through it.
There is no record of the deliberative process.
It suits the Taoiseach-----
Sorry, can we have a question, please?
There is only one revisionist in this Chamber and that is Deputy Micheál Martin.
Give it a break.
I put it to the Taoiseach that it suits him to create this aura of something wrong or hidden. At the time the late Brian Lenihan-----
There is no record of it.
There is a record of the deliberative process.
Where is it?
It is from the Minister for Finance. The rationale for the decision is on the record of this House.
The deliberative process is-----
The Minister is saying the Government has no trust in its own staff.
I invite Members to speak through the Chair, please.
When the late Minister for Finance came into this Chamber-----
It is the same staff.
-----and actually spoke to the Taoiseach before he brought in the bank guarantee-----
Where is the advice the Minister provided?
The then Leader of the Opposition, now Taoiseach, was actually briefed by the Minister for Finance at the time on the rationale behind the bank guarantee.
Would the Deputy mind putting his question? This is Question Time.
Where is the advice the Taoiseach received?
There are no secrets. I agree that this issue should certainly be examined and there is no difficulty in bringing forward-----
What is the Deputy's question?
The difficulty is there is no record.
My fundamental question is that the Taoiseach's approach to this matter has been deeply cynical and political.
Will the Deputy ask him a question?
It vindicates the decision of the people taken last year on Oireachtas inquiries because they do not trust the capacity of politicians to be objective and impartial-----
They certainly do not trust Fianna Fáil, my dear boy.
-----and to follow due process in the pursuit of or when investigating a particular issue. I do not have a difficulty in so doing-----
Certainly not in the greater Dublin area.
-----but the Taoiseach should cut out the innuendo and the attempt to smear people, particularly previous holders of his office who certainly did not shred any document. He owes his predecessor an apology for what he attempted to suggest that day, which was unacceptable.
I do not know what the question was.
Unlike many others, I paid tribute to my predecessor. The Deputy's question to me concerns:
the reason records in respect of the banking guarantee were inappropriately shredded in his Department; the date on which he was informed of same; if he [has] had this matter investigated.
The Deputy's second question is "to ask the Taoiseach the reason records of the banking guarantee decision were shredded; the person who informed him of same". As far as I can ascertain, there are no informers over there.
I asked the Secretary General if there was a file in the Department on the meetings that had taken place between members of the Government-----
The Cabinet memo.
-----and those involved in the banking organisations; whether we had a record of what they had said and a record of the rationale applied by the Government. We do not.
Is there a Cabinet memo?
There is no file in the Department of the Taoiseach.
Is there a Cabinet memo?
Would the Deputy mind speaking through the Chair, please?
Deputy Micheál Martin has asked his questions. Perhaps he might answer a few.
I am saying that in the Department of the Taoiseach there is no file on the meetings that took place or the rationale applied. The Deputy is now telling me that this information is available. Perhaps he might tell me outside where it is in order that we can have a look at it. Up until the incorporeal meeting at that hour of the morning, there is no file in the Department of the Taoiseach with any relevance to this question. My point was that the Government had no information on the rationale applied.
That is not true. There were the Honohan and the Watson and Regling reports.
Why did Fine Gael vote for it?
If it is available, I do not know where we can find it. I am not suggesting my predecessor hid it under the table or anything else, but there is no evidence available.
The Taoiseach has suggested it was shredded. He should not be so disingenuous.
I have said it was either shredded, disposed of or dispatched. Is the Deputy suggesting to me, from long years of experience, that when the chief executives and directors of banks come to meet members of the Government to make their case for a guarantee or whatever else, there is no written record available in the Department?
An event like that does not happen every week.
Is the Deputy telling me that no notes are taken and that meetings take place in secret? It does not happen. There is no file in the Department of the Taoiseach.
Is there a Cabinet memo?
Perhaps the Deputy might reflect on where he was during the incorporeal meeting in doing his duty as Minister for Foreign Affairs. Did he ask questions?
It is well known.
Was the Deputy at the meeting?
I am after telling the Taoiseach.
Until that point, there were meetings and discussions and a rationale was applied by members of the Government in order for that incorporeal meeting to take place and the Deputy to be called on his phone and asked whether he agreed with the decision. The Government has no evidence of the rationale applied and of the meetings that took place----
It does.
-----and what was said at them.
The Government does have evidence of the rationale applied.
Deputy Martin, please.
In view of the fact that this was the single biggest economic decision ever made and foisted on the back of the taxpayer, I would have thought there would be plenty files on the meetings, what was said and why the rationale was applied in the way it was. There is none in the Department of the Taoiseach.
There is in the Department of Finance.
Fine Gael should not have voted for it.
Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett has a question.
I find the political point scoring between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael extremely amusing------
Have another march.
------as they both supported the bank guarantee which, as the Taoiseach rightly said-----
It may be amusing, but as this is Question Time, perhaps we should have some questions.
-----was the single most important financial decision taken by any Government in the State's history and which bankrupted the country with disastrous consequences.
Does the Deputy have a question?
I am responding to the amusing political games being played.
Perhaps the Deputy might do that some other time.
The Taoiseach certainly has a point. Fianna Fáil has a brass neck to raise the issue; it is beyond belief, but how the Taoiseach can poke fun when he supported the measure is beyond me.
Fianna Fáil does not have the neck of the Deputy.
Has the Taoiseach asked the departmental officials who were present at the time where the records are? It stinks to high heaven that there is no record of this most important decision and the deliberations on it. What investigations has the Taoiseach carried out into the record keeping for that crucial meeting if he is so worried about it?
I am only trying to answer the questions asked - two by Deputy Micheál Martin and one by Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett. His question relates to the circumstances in which documents related to the bank guarantee were shredded in the Department. On 12 June I used the words shredded, disposed of and dispatched, but the fact is that there is no record in the Department of the Taoiseach with any relevance to this matter.
It was a lousy, dishonourable thing to do.
For the single biggest economic decision which has caused mayhem within the economy and so much stress and pressure-----
Which Fine Gael supported.
-----there is no record of what happened in the lead-in to that decision, the meetings that took place, the discussions held and the rationale applied by members of that Government at the incorporeal meeting in the early hours of that morning. The late, lamented Minister for Finance called me that morning shortly after 7 a.m. to say there was a real problem with the banks and to ask about the position of the Fine Gael Party on the issue. I said that we supported having a banking system because it was the lifeblood of the economy, but we needed to know the conditions attached.
He said, "Do what you have to do."
I was in a radio studio at the time and happened to speak to the Minister who had kindly contacted me shortly after 7 a.m. It was not a matter for discussion then. One would expect to find evidence in a Department as important as the Department of the Taoiseach, given that it was an issue of such economic significance and has been the cause of financial stress for so many since, but there is no file. Who said what? What evidence was given to my predecessor? What was the evidence given to the people who attended the meetings? Was the rationale applied by members of the Government to the evidence in order that an incorporeal decision could be taken? There is no file which I find quite extraordinary.
It is on the public record.
It is not.
I will allow a brief supplementary question from Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett.
It stinks to high heaven that there is no record of this most important meeting or the deliberations that led to this disastrous decision. I have pointed out that it is amusing that the Taoiseach is poking fun at Fianna Fáil when his party supported the decision. We all know, as it turned out, that the rationale was shared by Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and the European authorities-----
Will the Deputy, please, ask a supplementary question?
-----to protect the banks at all costs and sacrifice the rest of us to pay for it.
I do not think the Deputy heard me. This is Question Time.
If the Taoiseach is so concerned about the matter, what investigations has he conducted to ascertain whether records were taken by departmental officials or anybody else, especially if he is making the serious suggestion there may have been shredding or the dispatching of these critical records? It is suspicious that there are no records, what is he doing to find out what happened to them, or if records were taken?
I inquired into it as a matter of deep interest to me and the nation. I read the few pieces of paper available and there is nothing in them of any consequence.
If there are pieces of paper, the Taoiseach should publish them.
I understand influential people called on the Government in the days prior to the decision to make their views known about the issues involved.
There is no evidence of these discussions or what was said. There is no evidence of the facts given to members of the Government or my predecessor and why the decision was made in the way it was. That evidence should have been made available to the people. On an issue of such magnitude one would have thought this was absolutely critical.
Has the Taoiseach asked the departmental officials?
Yes, of course. All of the delegations to Government Buildings had something to say and a story to tell on how good or bad their financial institutions were, but there is no evidence of this in the Department of the Taoiseach. If I am at the Bunclody Community Council, I will have somebody taking notes in order that they will be there for all to see in the years ahead.
Can we confirm that notes were taken?
On the single biggest economic decision ever foisted on the backs of the people, there is no evidence in the Department of the Taoiseach about who said what, record of the evidence they gave and the rationale applied to it. Even by the Deputy's terms, that is quite extraordinary.
Tá an píosa stair seo cosúil le clár "Laurel and Hardy", an raibh and comhdán, nach raibh an comhdán, bhí an comhdán, ní raibh an comhdán. What the Taoiseach has said is very clear.
There is no file in the Department of the Taoiseach. It has been either shredded, disposed of or dispatched. In other words, the Government has no evidence of the discussion that took place.
Will the Taoiseach clarify whether there ever was a file? If it never existed, when did it become clear to the Taoiseach? When did officials tell him no such file or files existed? If, as the Taoiseach appears to believe, a deficiency existed in the Department of the Taoiseach, and for that matter the Department of Finance, in record-keeping and note-taking, what steps has he taken to investigate his allegations and to change procedures in this regard since he took office?
Bhí an Teachta Ó Máirtín ag rá liom gur cóir dom a bheith an-cúramach faoi seo. Níl mé ag rá ar chor ar bith go ndeachaigh Aire ar bith nó an duine a bhí romham sa suíochán seo amach leis na páipéir seo agus gur chaith sé amach iad, ach níl siad ann. Sin atá i gceist agam. Ba seo an cinneadh is tábhachtaí a ndearnadh le blianta anuas.
Cén uair a bhfuair an Taoiseach an t-eolas seo?
Bhuail mé isteach leis na hoifigigh a bhí sa Roinn ag an am sin agus léigh mé na páipéir atá ann, ach níl tada iontu faoin gcinneadh.
Bhí nóta ann mar sin, an raibh?
De réir na ráitis poiblí agus de réir an eolas poiblí atá againn, bhí neart cruinnithe ar siúl roimh déanamh an chinnidh sin, ó thaobh bancanna agus iad siúd a bhí ag teacht isteach chuig iad siúd a bhí ag freastal ar an Rialtas ag an am sin, ach níl an scéal leagtha amach. Níl tuarascáil ar fáil ar chor ar bith orthu sin. Sílim go bhfuil sin an-aisteach ar fad. Sílim gur cóir go mbeadh tuarascáil ann. Mar adúirt mé, ghlaoigh mé isteach ar an oifigeach a bhí ag obair sa Roinn ag an am sin, an duine a bhí i gceannas ar an Roinn, agus thug sé dom na páipéir atá ann, ach níl tada iontu siúd faoi na cruinnithe sin, an cinneadh sin, an t-eolas sin, an fhaisnéis sin nó an scéal sin a tugadh do bhaill an Rialtais ag an am.
Sin rud difriúil.
We are not having a long debate on this.
Dúirt an Taoiseach go raibh píosaí páipéir ann agus gur léigh sé iad ach ansin deireann sé nach raibh aon rud ann.
Mar adúirt mé leis an Teachta Ó Máirtín, léigh mé na páipéir atá ann ach níl tada iontu. Níl scéal, faisnéis ná eolas ar bith iontu faoi na cruinnithe a bhí ann roimh an cinneadh sin a bheith déanta.
Tuigim sin
Níl eolas ar bith faoi iad siúd a tháinig isteach roimh bhaill an Rialtais ag insint an scéil leo agus ag rá leo go raibh siad i dtrioblóid agus go raibh deacracht acu. Níl tuarascáil ar bith le fáil faoi sin. Tá an t-eolas sin iontach tábhachtach do mhuintir agus do pholaiteoirí na tire, ach níl sé ar fáil.
Tá difear mór idir nótaí agus nótaí dona.
Cinnte, go bhfuil.
What records are taken at the EU Heads of Government summits, for instance like the one on 29 June recently? If contentious matters come to pass after a summit meeting, what sorts of records and documentation are prepared and recorded at these summit meetings?
Sometimes at these meetings conclusions are prepared in advance. Sometimes the conclusions, however, are not what actually was concluded at all. During the course of a meeting, while there are only one or two officials present, briefing notes of the discussion are sent to various delegations in order that they will know the trend of the discussion and the nature of the argument that might arise. With modern digital technology, I have seen some leaders texting or sending information out, too. In a formal sense, as the discussion continues, sections of briefing notes are prepared by officials and sent to the delegations so they have an understanding of the trend of the arguments, the discussions and who is saying what.
Through a freedom of information request I long ago sought records of a discussion between the European Council President, Mr. Van Rompuy, and the Taoiseach. It was, however, stopped by the Taoiseach and the Government side even though Europe was anxious to give the records of that particular Van Rompuy compromise.
The real issue is the Taoiseach playing games and spreading conspiracy theories to shed a better light on himself.
No, that is not the case.
What is the question?
That is wrong, because the fundamental point is we all know the rationale for the bank guarantee at the time. There is no secret about it.
We actually do not know what happened.
We will not go into that. What is the question?
We know it was a liquidity issue and not just in Ireland.
No, we will not go there.
I am putting this to the Taoiseach, if I may. I will not be long putting it.
Put what to the Taoiseach?
I am putting a question.
Tá an ceist seo an-fhada.
At the time, there was the collapse of Lehman Brothers, while in Britain Royal Bank Scotland announced it was going to go bankrupt. Northern Rock had gone bankrupt the year before. There was a seizure in bank liquidity across the globe following the fall of Lehman Brothers. The fundamental issue facing the Government at the time-----
The Deputy is giving us a lecture on history. Will he ask a question?
-----was, as per Professor Honohan's report, that it either maintained a banking system or it allowed it to collapse. I believe the guarantee should be examined and I have no difficulty with such an examination. The Committee of Public Accounts should be allowed get on with its work in this regard, having already put in six months of significant work on the issues around the bank guarantee, the collapse of the banks and the banking crisis not just here but across the world. This is the worst banking crisis since the late 1920s. It has been unprecedented. What faced the Government the last time was unprecedented as well. The Taoiseach knows that in all sincerity. Putting the politics to one side, those are the issues. We need to find out, first, why the banks collapsed and, second, the policy response to that collapse which was the bank guarantee.
There is growing concern in the House that one of the most effective committees we have had for many a year and which has cross-party support, namely, the Committee of Public Accounts, is being nobbled and undermined progressively by the Government. The most recent manifestation of this is Ministers questioning its capacity to investigate the issues around the banking crisis and bank guarantee. Will the Taoiseach assure the House that we will not witness an unacceptable undermining of the status of the Committee of Public Accounts? Many other committees should be like it in terms of its cross-party consensus and capacity to deal with issues, as it did before.
The Deputy should ask the former Attorneys General about that.
Will the Taoiseach confirm the Committee of Public Accounts will continue its work on the bank guarantee issue?
That is an entirely separate question.
The Deputy is making the case why all the evidence as to what led the then Government to make its decision on the bank guarantee should be made available to the people. Everyone knew a banking crisis was on its way when Lehman Brothers went down, as well as the letter from Mr. Trichet and the European Central Bank in respect of the then difficulties in the Irish banking sector.
Without playing politics with this, I would have thought, and Deputy Martin as a Government member would have expected, I am quite sure, that whatever delegations came in to members of the then Government, stating there was a problem, we were running into dry sand and we needed to do something, and if their case was to have a bank guarantee or whatever else, the evidence they would have presented to the then Government, of which Deputy Martin was a member, is not available to this Government. Whether it was ever written down or, if it was, where it went, I certainly do not have access to it. In the interests of everyone, that would have been of fundamental importance. However, for whatever reason, the Department of the Taoiseach has no access to all of that information, evidence and rationale.
Has the Department of Finance access to it?
I do not want to proceed down a road where we end up with some sort of interminable inquiry. We have had the Regling and Watson report, Governor Honohan's response, the Commission papers and all that. These questions are about a comment I made in the House about the information and evidence presented to the members of the Government before the decision on the guarantee was made. The other reports are subsequent to the bank guarantee. The Government, in its own way, will make its decision as to what is the best thing to do.
I read the good report from the Committee of Public Accounts. The committee has always had, still has and will continue to have a very high standing in the House. There is also the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform which has a different remit, or we could focus on the question of using a different committee entirely.
Last year we put this matter to the people in a referendum relating to whistleblowers and those who might want to provide information. However, what was proposed was torpedoed by the input of eight former Attorneys General-----
No, the people voted against it.
-----who exerted really strong influence at a critical time.
The Taoiseach should accept the choice of the people.
The people turned down the proposal.
They voted against it for good reason.
I respect their choice and we must live with their decision. It might have made the position of the Government somewhat easier if the decision had been different. However, that is neither here nor there.
Not when one considers the way the Government is behaving.
The answer to the Deputy's question is that the Government wants this matter to be resolved. We will try to ensure this happens in a way that is realisable and credible. We will not proceed down the road where there will be a pyramid of writs and litigation and a series of interminable meanderings which do not get to the truth. After all, getting to the truth is the fundamental issue.
Regulatory Impact Assessments
Micheál Martin
Ceist:6Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the success his Department is having in relation to the requirement outlined in the strategy statement regarding publishing Regulatory Impact Assessments before Government decisions are taken; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30314/12]
Micheál Martin
Ceist:7Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the way his Department is rationalising regulators to promote consumer interest; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30315/12]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 7 together.
My Department will shortly be consulting Departments generally about the question of publication of regulatory impact analyses carried out before Government decisions are taken. I draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that the Government has, in a number of instances, been publishing the general schemes of Bills and referring them to Oireachtas committees for consideration in advance of publishing the related Bill.
As regards the rationalisation of regulators, given the radical changes in the Irish economic environment in recent years, there is a need to reassess and reframe the role of regulators as a central part of Ireland's recovery. In particular, the creation of an investment-friendly environment that encourages job creation, at lowest cost to business and consumers, should be an important factor in the overall work of all regulatory bodies in Ireland. This is captured in the programme for Government commitment on economic regulation. In that context and under a commitment in the action plan for jobs, Forfás is undertaking a study to identify changes in the operation of sectoral regulators that would enhance cost competitiveness. The Forfás study which is expected to be completed later this year and the recommendations arising will provide an important evidence base and input into work on the effectiveness of economic regulation more generally as envisaged in the programme for Government which is being co-ordinated by my Department.
Given the multifaceted nature of the overall regulation agenda and the need for clarity and certainty for businesses and consumers, the Government recently confirmed the assignment of lead responsibility in respect of the various functions in this area across a number of relevant Departments. As with other major policy areas of government, overall strategic co-ordination and work on economic regulation in general will be overseen and progressed at Cabinet committee level.
It is difficult to make much of the Taoiseach's reply which has been scripted in such a way as to avoid specifics. In the context of regulatory impact assessments being made before Government decisions are taken, do I understand from the initial part of the reply that this is not quite happening as normal in respect of legislation being brought forward? Is there a requirement to produce regulatory impact assessments in respect of all items of legislation before they are published and prior to the taking of all Government decisions?
The consumer and competition Bill has been delayed on three occasions. Is the Taoiseach in a position to outline the progress made in promoting the interests of consumers in the context of rationalising the position on regulators generally? The rationalisation of regulators has its origins in the many statements made by the Taoiseach and the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, when they were in opposition. The Minister, in particular, wanted to rationalise the position to such an extent that there would be a single regulator who would have responsibility for all areas. I do not get the sense that we are moving in that direction. If anything, we are moving towards creating even further regulators. I refer to the Government's proposals to appoint a regulator with responsibility for water services. I would like the Taoiseach to clarify the position on the points I have made.
The programme for Government states, "We will require Departments to carry out and publish Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) before Government decisions are taken". As the Deputy is aware, regulatory impact assessments involve an examination of the likely impact of proposed new regulations or regulatory changes. They help to identify side-effects or hidden costs associated with regulation and clarify the likely outcome of proposed changes. During the assessment process everyone affected is entitled to ensure his or her views and interests are understood.
All Bills have not been referred to the Cabinet or Oireachtas committees prior to publication. My Department is taking the lead in this matter and will consult all other Departments on it. I expect that the process in this regard will be completed in the autumn. The Government will then consider how to implement what is proposed. The heads of Bills are being published more frequently. This is not happening as often as I would like, but they are being published more frequently and referred to the relevant Oireachtas committees, which is good. Where committees have considered the heads of Bills, they have made some very pertinent points. The quality of the consultation in this regard has assisted the process relating to taking a Bill on Second and Committee Stages, when matters go that far.
I referred to the multifaceted nature of the overall regulation agenda and the need for certainty regarding the allocation of responsibilities. In that regard, the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation has responsibility for reducing red tape and administrative burdens, dealing with competition issues and representing Ireland at EU-OECD international fora dealing with regulation, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has responsibility for dealing with regulatory impact assessments, that is, training, support, monitoring and compliance, while the Department of the Taoiseach has responsibility for dealing with the effectiveness of economic regulators. In addition, the Department of the Taoiseach and the Office of the Attorney General have responsibility for dealing with the transparency and quality of regulation.
As I have already informed the Deputy, my Department is involved in consultations with all other Departments and we expect to conclude the process by early autumn. We will then make a Government decision on implementing the programme and see to it that all Departments publish regulatory impact assessments before Government decisions are taken.
Many business concerns state they are over-regulated. That was also said to be the case in the financial world for a long period. The Government's policy is to reduce regulation and the regulatory burden and also to simplify regulations in order to avoid duplication. The position of the European Union and the OECD is the same. However, every European directive brought forward will, in all likelihood, increase the regulatory burden on somebody somewhere in the context of their business. I do not get a sense that, either at official level across Departments or at Oireachtas level, penetration is being achieved on the regulatory issue. There is no indication that people are shouting, "Halt", that they are taking stock or that they are bringing forward alternative or simple mechanisms.
I do not intend what I am about to say in a partisan way, but the Taoiseach has referred to three or four Departments which are dealing with different bodies internationally. That sounds itsy bitsy and somewhat all over the place. In the context of the Government, the European Union and the various Oireachtas committees which deal with it, we need a far more simple approach to dealing with regulation that is coming down the tracks and a more honest approach to assessing what will be the impact of such regulation on businesses and sectoral interests and how it may relate to costs and jobs.
I do not disagree with this principle. The Department of Finance has produced a report which was brought before us just today which outlines the reductions achieved in the administrative and red-tape bureaucracy associated with the Revenue Commissioners. I understand Revenue measured up in all areas in this regard, except in the area of VAT. I have indicated that the Departments of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Public Expenditure and Reform and the Taoiseach and the Office of the Attorney General have been allocated lead responsibility in a number of the areas to which I refer in the context of starting a process of co-ordination. I recall talking to the Mayor of Chicago, Mr. Rahm Emanuel, who informed me that in order to establish any kind of an enterprise in that city one required well over 100 licences. He then stated that because of the authority invested in him, he had been able to reduce the burden in this regard by up to two thirds. In so far as businesses and retail outlets in this country are concerned, the Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy John Perry, is considering what is involved. Some of the licences which apply in Ireland have European connotations and reducing their number is not as simple as one might think. The Nice treaty stated we should reduce bureaucratic red tape by 25% and this has been an aspiration for a long time. While it is not where I would like it to be, it is taking shape. I hope that by mid-autumn we will be in a position to publish our decision in respect of having the process right for publishing all of these in order that Deputies and others involved will have that information before the Government decision is made.
I have one question about consumer regulators. The National Consumer Agency was established in 2007 to protect and promote consumers' rights. In 2008, it was announced that it would be amalgamated with the Competition Authority which, it appears to me, is a totally different body responsible for enforcing Irish and European competition law. The National Consumer Agency has a good record of defending consumer rights in a number of disputes, including the one involving Aer Lingus. It is now 2012, so can the Taoiseach give us some sense of where this merger stands? Will legislation be introduced and, if so, when? Can the Taoiseach give a commitment that this merger will not in any way reduce the service provided and the role played by the National Consumer Agency in defending and promoting consumers' rights?
We are straining this question a little now.
I do not know the up-to-date position on that merger, but I will check the details and respond to Deputy Adams on its status.
Okay. Go raibh maith agat.
Economic Management Council
8.Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if the Economic Management Council met with the banks on 26 June. [32114/12]
9. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the meeting between the Economic Management Council and the banks on 26 June. [32115/12]
10.Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if there was a meeting between the Economic Management Council and the banks on 26 June 2012; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34959/12]
11.Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on any meeting held between the Economic Management Council and the banks on 26 June 2012; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34960/12]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 to 11, inclusive, together.
The Economic Management Council has met 62 times since its establishment. The members have met 25 times so far this year, most recently on 12 July, and have met 12 times since the Easter recess. The Government has been working closely with the Irish banks to ensure that the banking sector supports economic recovery. The members of the council last met with the banks on 26 June. The general topic of the meeting was mortgage arrears and new mortgage lending. The timing of the meeting coincided with the Government's decision to publish the personal insolvency legislation. During the meeting, members of the council took the opportunity to set out the Government's commitment to assisting those in mortgage arrears and set out our strategy to address mortgage arrears difficulties. The council also took the opportunity to seek assurances from all of the banks that they are fully committed to addressing the mortgage arrears of their customers.
Did the Taoiseach deal with the issue of tracker mortgages with the banks?
The European Central Bank cut rates earlier this month but most of the 250,000 variable rate mortgage holders are not expected to benefit from that. AIB, EBS, National Irish Bank, Bank of Ireland, KBC Bank and Irish Nationwide are still considering whether to pass on the latest cut. Did the Taoiseach take the opportunity to raise that matter with the banks?
Did he raise the issue of bank branch closures, which will have a significant social consequence, particularly in rural areas? According to the figures, upwards of 200 bank branches are threatened with closure, which will make it difficult for people in rural communities to bank locally.
When the Taoiseach has replied, I would like to come back with another question if I may.
The Economic Management Council has met with the banks on a number of occasions. On the last occasion we had a series of questions about SME credit, including how banks are ensuring that their targets will be met, whether they are taking practical initiatives to assist SMEs in obtaining credit, and whether they show a willingness to implement and support the Government's initiatives as set out in the action plan on jobs. There was also a discussion on the Government's proposed microfinance agency and the partial loan credit guarantee report on freeing up access to credit for small businesses.
With regard to mortgage credit, we asked how banks were ensuring that credit is available to support the Government's budget initiative on first-time buyers, whereby they will have access to mortgage interest relief this year and for years to come if they buy in 2012, but not if they buy in 2013. We asked what checks and balances there are to ensure that conditions on mortgage credit are fair, balanced and not unduly restrictive. We also asked the banks for an analysis of the differences in what is happening in the various regions. In some parts of Dublin city house prices have begun to rise to a small extent, while in other areas prices are continuing to fall or there is a slight fluctuation.
We want to see banks supporting the mortgage interest relief initiative. We sought examples of how banks were dealing with difficulties in regard to mortgage arrears, asked whether they were sitting down with customers to work out solutions in these cases, and asked about their implementation of the Keane report.
At the last meeting, we indicated that we intended to publish the Personal Insolvency Bill and two days later the banks came out with a range of facilities they were offering. That is part of a regular process of meetings with the banks to ensure that the focus is kept where it should be. The pillar banks are both committed to lending €3.5 billion of new money this year. That is for approval for new loans as distinct from loans that are not drawn down. I hope the banks will keep to those targets.
Banks have been encouraged to get back out into the workplace and inform people that they have money to lend, which is available under the normal rules. The Deputy asked for examples of the types of business that have been funded by banks. While funding is not as extensive as one would wish, it is beginning to happen. I hope that will continue. It is a measure of the confidence that is returning to the indigenous economy, which has been very flat for quite some time.
In moving around the country, I have seen that in general the number of new business start-ups is quite encouraging. I know that some businesses have gone to the wall but there are also people who are putting their money where the challenge is. They are measuring up and starting off new small and medium-sized businesses. It is great to see people who are prepared to put their own money into initiatives where they can get access to credit and employ up to ten people where they see such opportunities.
I appreciate that the main focus of the Taoiseach's meeting concerned the Government's Personal Insolvency Bill. Sinn Féin has welcomed the publication of that legislation but we are disappointed that the banks are being allowed to have a veto. Would the Government consider an independent agency, as we have sought, which is empowered to enforce legally binding settlements on debtors and creditors?
Did the banks give the Taoiseach an assurance that they would work within the terms of the Bill and engage constructively with mortgage holders?
Has the Taoiseach had any opportunity to consider the apparent change in the European Central Bank's policy on burning senior bondholders? If press reports of remarks by the ECB president, Mr. Draghi, are correct, this would be a significant change. Has the Taoiseach had an opportunity to consider the matter? Can he cast any light on reports that Mr. Draghi's proposals for the Spanish banks were rejected by EU finance ministers? I do not know whether that is true, but perhaps the Taoiseach has an inside line on it.
To answer the Deputy's first question on the Personal Insolvency Bill, I met with a number of representatives of Money Advice and Budgeting Service organisations around the country, which have been dealing with debt and distress arising from credit cards, car loans and other financial issues, as distinct from mortgages. If people wish to go down the road of personal insolvency under the legislation, a personal financial statement must be prepared. Under the legislation, they have access to skilled accountancy expertise for two hours, which is paid for by the banks. At that stage, they are required to put up all the information about their indebtedness. The point made by MABS was that it would prefer a more comprehensive response. If someone is going down the road of personal insolvency resolution, all indebtedness must come to light, including the expertise that the MABS personnel had been dealing with, together with the expertise available from accountants, which will come from a panel of accountants.
As far as the ECB is concerned, the matter was discussed at the eurogroup meeting. There were differences of opinion and the matter has not been finalised. Ireland has paid off most of the bondholders for the past number of years. The requirement is for Ireland to get the best deal it can on the outcome of European Council meeting, where the eurogroup was charged with putting flesh on the decision. That is part of the reason the Minister for Finance is in Frankfurt speaking to Mr. Draghi. This country has paid off the bondholders but, in the case of Spain, I understand it is talking about banks that would become defunct. The impending crisis meant the Spanish Government of the day encouraged people to save and some of those savers may get caught in that situation if it was to apply in Spain. Irrespective of the decision on Spain, we want the best possible deal for our restructuring of debt. The fact the European Council meeting made a specific point about equality of treatment is important. At the eurogroup meeting, that was followed by similar requirements in respect of Ireland. The matter has not been concluded. Members are aware of the statement of Commissioner Rehn that he would like to see this concluded for Ireland by October. The approach has been endorsed by Commissioner Barnier, the IMF and Europe, which has been far more supportive of the challenge faced by the Irish people in regard to safeguarding Europe and meeting the challenge. Now is the time for analysis and negotiation so we can have the best deal possible secured for our people arising from these negotiations, which will take place between now and October.
There was widespread disappointment at the Personal Insolvency Bill. It failed to do what should have been done, which is to provide for the writing down of unsustainable mortgage debt left on the backs of people through no fault of their own. It happened because of the pumping up of the property bubble by the banks, the developers and their friends, Fianna Fáil, in government at the time. People have been left with this disastrous situation, which is no fault of their own. They hoped there would be real relief in writing down the debt and recognising it was a debt artificially created by the greedy and imposed on the back of people who want nothing more than to put a roof over their heads. Instead, there is an arrangement-----
We are not discussing the Personal Insolvency Bill. Deputy Boyd Barrett should ask a question.
-----where the banks have a veto and the last say. Is this the meeting where the Taoiseach decided to give the banks the last say? They seem to have the last say on everything. Is this the meeting at which it was all agreed, whereby the bank said that any debt settlement arrangements and insolvency arrangements would be subject to the banks having the last say and the Taoiseach just accepted it? It is a pretty poor show given what the banks have done and are doing to this country. Once again, they come in and tell the Taoiseach what to do and he obeys.
Did the Taoiseach invite distressed mortgages holders to the meeting? Did he invite the credit unions, which are more in touch with ordinary people? There will be no debt write-downs for them and no bailout but the banks get the bailout and still do not engage in debt write-down.
Can the Deputy stick to the question?
Did the Taoiseach talk to ordinary people affected by this problem or did he listen only to the banks?
I am not too sure Deputy Boyd Barrett would recognise a happy day if he saw one. Does he think we live at one remove from ordinary people? Does he not think people walk in to the offices of members of Government parties to talk about their problems? Does he not think they express their concerns, anxiety and distress about the challenge they face every day in their lives? They do, and the Personal Insolvency Bill is an incentive for banks to get on with it. They have been recapitalised to the extent that they can deal with mortgage arrears, mortgage distress and people's concerns. At the Economic Management Council meetings, we have encouraged the banks to put teams together to sit down with people, to work out solutions from the Keane report or from another facility, such as mortgage to rent, split mortgages, mortgage to lease or part write-downs without having recourse to personal insolvency. There is a real incentive for the banks and lending institutions to sit down with their customers and work out individual solutions. That is what it takes because a particular formula does not fit every case. Each case is different given the human circumstances, where the people live, and whether they are working. We encourage that process.
In the case of Deputy Boyd Barrett, impossible is the measure of his satisfaction. I do not know who Deputy Boyd Barrett meets in his constituency or whether he has a good word to say about anybody ever. We tried to help in the best way we can those who are in distress and who have concerns and anxieties. For Deputy Boyd Barrett to suggest you do not meet people like this everyday is complete and utter nonsense.
I will talk about this issue in more detail later in the week. I got my brief on the Bill from someone who is in mortgage distress.
We are not talking about Deputy Boyd Barrett's brief.
I went to someone in the situation of unsustainable mortgage arrears-----
We are talking about a meeting of the Economic Management Council.
-----and I asked the person to read the Bill and provide me with a critique of it. The person said the Bill was rubbish because it left the power in the hands of the banks.
Deputy Boyd Barrett can make that point on Second Stage.
Deputy Boyd Barrett finds everything to be rubbish.
Was it at this meeting that the Taoiseach gave the banks the veto? Why did he not tell them that the Government was going to tell the banks what to do and that it was going to impose fair debt settlement arrangements because the Government is now the boss of the banks and, having recapitalised them, they should serve the people rather than their own interests? Why did the Taoiseach not do so? Why did he allow the banks to have a veto? Did the banks tell the Taoiseach that at the meeting?
They did not. I am sure that if Deputy Boyd Barrett sat down, as he knows most things, he could have devised a solution for the person he is talking about.
I spoke to someone affected by the problem.
We know about that.
Why did the Taoiseach not get such people to write the Bill, not the banks?
The Personal Insolvency Bill is one of the most complex items of legislation to come before the House in many years. Leaving aside the Bill, the fact that banks were recapitalised to the extent they were-----
By us, the people.
-----the fact that the Keane report produced recommendations on how to bring about a resolution for distressed mortgages and those in arrears and in difficulties, is the reason the lending institutions have an incentive to sit down with everyone and work out an individual solution for each case. There are those who have had solutions worked out where the house is not being taken from them, where one of a variety of things has been put in place and people know they will have a roof over their heads and have a sense of an end in sight for their problems. It works both ways because people make adjustments and the lending institutions make adjustments. That is why the taxpayer recapitalised banks to that extent. Banks said they need to put teams of competent people in place in order to do so. The trend in banks for many years was to throw out money. The more they threw out, the more they got paid. This seemed a complete contradiction and certainly led to this country standing on the cliff edge. I share the Deputy's view in that regard.