Paul Kehoe
Ceist:45 Deputy Paul Kehoe asked the Minister for Finance his plans to introduce changes in public service management that would create more accountability for senior managers. [17174/10]
Amharc ar fhreagraPublic Service Reform.
Ceisteanna (13)
Freagraí ó Béal (22 píosaí cainte)
As the Deputy will be aware, senior managers in the public service are already subject to a wide range of accountability measures. Public servants are accountable to the Oireachtas through their appearances before joint committees and the Committee of Public Accounts. They are also subject to scrutiny by the Comptroller and Auditor General and to wider scrutiny through the operation of the freedom of information legislation and the work of the Office of the Ombudsman.
The Public Service Management Act 1997 requires Secretaries General and heads of office to prepare and report on statements of strategy and makes them more directly responsible and accountable for the day-to-day management of their Departments and offices. Such responsibilities and accountability can, in turn, be assigned to other officials. In addition, annual output statements must be submitted by Departments and offices to the Oireachtas in conjunction with the annual Estimates, a system which demands a rigorous approach to the management of all resources across the Civil Service.
The introduction of an integrated Performance Management and Development System, PMDS, places a strong emphasis on individual performance and accountability and the integration of this system with other human resource processes increases the level of accountability for individuals. While much has been achieved in improving the performance and accountability of public servants, I would be the first to recognise that there remains room for further improvement, consistent of course with maintaining the respective roles of Ministers and officials.
Building on the recommendations of the OECD review of the Irish public service, the report of the task force on the public service, Transforming Public Services, identified the improvement of individual and organisational performance, in the context of clearer target outputs and outcomes, as a key priority. The task force made a number of recommendations, including the extension of annual output statements and PMDS to the wider public service . Work on the implementation of the task force recommendations is being overseen by the Cabinet committee on transforming public services.
The proposals recently negotiated at Croke Park provide for the advancement of the next steps in increased accountability at organisational and individual level. These include proposals that merit-based, competitive promotion policies will be the norm; that there will be significantly improved performance management across all public service areas, with promotion and incremental progression linked in all cases to performance; that performance management systems will be introduced in all areas of the public service where none currently exists. Each of these measures should incentivise public servants to achieve performance targets and improve their accountability for same.
We have seen in recent times appalling failure in public service, in terms of the regulator's office and FÁS, which has been rewarded by golden handshakes. What type of signal does this send out in terms of accountability?
The Government consistently states in respect of this disaster into which we have plunged, economically, that it acted at all times on the best advice available. Is this not a cop-out when all this so-called best advice remains anonymous? Did the Minister read the article by a well respected commentator on public service reform which described the track record in execution of major policy strategies as suffering from implementation deficit disorder? It is also stated in that article that the Department of Finance is incapable of leading reform in the public service and that it, more than any Department, needs radical reform. What is the Minister's response to that level of critique?
Deputy Bruton has ranged far and wide in terms of the questions he asked. In response to his final question, I did read the articles on the performance of my Department. The senior officials of my Department have in recent years worked extremely hard and diligently in difficult circumstances. That has been my personal direct experience of the Department. I am sure Deputies Bruton and Burton would share that perception. The best way therefore to read the article in question is in terms of identifying what deeper structural issues arise in the criticism made of all Departments, including the Department of Finance, which require to be addressed. I agree with the article in one respect, namely, that the cult of the generalist has been glorified in our public services to an extent that the development of specialised knowledge and information is an important issue in Departments.
For example, I had to go outside conventional recruitment procedures to recruit a bank analyst for my Department. The question of the ongoing development of suitable skills in different Departments that pertain to the core activities of those Departments is equally important.
I do not wish to rush the Minister but a number of Deputies are offering.
A number of Departments take the view that a person employed therein as an accountant should act as an accountant, a person designated an economist should act as an economist and a lawyer should act as lawyer. In my view, these skills should be more widely defused throughout the public service in the general grades as distinct from the specialised grades. This matter is under examination in my Department.
On the other criticism made in the article to which Deputy Bruton referred, there appears to be a suggestion that one can confuse the responsibility of the Minister and that of the civil servant to the extent that the civil servant must warn the Minister every time he or she makes a decision that he or she may be wrong. I do not believe that is possible under our system.
I call Deputy Burton on a brief supplementary.
Does the Minister agree that under our system leadership is crucial in motivating people? In the foreseeable future, senior managers and the rest of us will have to manage our resources better with less; this is the critical challenge. In that context, there seems to be virtually no accountants or qualified economists with commercial experience or a range of other qualifications, with the exception of information technology qualifications, employed directly in the Minister's Department. At the time of the banking crisis, I had dealings with the Minister's Department officials. Their incapacity to analyse information about the banks was terrifyingly restrictive.
What impact is the industrial relations dispute having? For example, I understand the flow of information about costs and estimates is extensively limited in the health services. Have the management in the health services and other Departments taken any action to deal with the drying up of the flow of information?
While agreeing with the general direction of what Deputy Burton suggested, there is a high level of economic expertise within the Department of Finance and a broad range of qualifications throughout the general grades as well as in any technical positions the Department may have.
There are very few accountants.
This was gone through in a previous parliamentary question. There is a substantial amount of qualified economic expertise in the Department.
There are no accountancy experts.
No, but I accepted that. I was simply making a correction to what the Deputy stated for the record because it was dealt with previously in a parliamentary question. I refer to the question of the impact of the limited industrial action. This has had an impact on the flow of information from the HSE because the industrial action has taken place at a very high level within the service, including at a level just below the highest grade. This had inhibited the flow of information to the Government from the HSE.
Does the Minister intend to prioritise any area for change in the public sector? Is there any specific sector which should be prioritised for management change, for example, the HSE, which was cited by Deputy Burton just now? We are aware the Taoiseach once characterised the Department of Health and Children as Angola. Should the Minister, therefore, prioritise the HSE for change?
I take the view that in respect of the HSE, education, the Prison Service, the Garda Síochána or the Defence Forces, line Departments are responsible for the implementation of the public service reform agenda whereas my Department is responsible for public service change in the line Departments, including that which the Deputy compared to a certain west African State.
It was the Taoiseach, not me.
He made the comparison in a former incarnation, but I accept the point. That is the focus of my Department and myself. The quality of decision making and performance can be enhanced and improved from top to bottom in that organisation. This is one of the reasons the Croke Park agreement is so important.
Solid proposals were put forward. Does the Minister support the establishment of a Department of public service reform to cut through this problem? Does he support accountability with consequences, which does not mean golden handshakes? Does the Minister support publishing advice such that people can determine what advice was tendered and acted upon and such that there can be genuine accountability?
When I refer to acting on advice I do not do so to justify my decision. I arrive at decisions as a Minister. When I refer to advice I do so to rebut any suggestion of corruption, impropriety or listening to wrong representations.
The Minister has defended decisions on the basis of acting on the best available advice.
These allegations have been flung around the House.
I am not flinging anything around the House.
No. I have no wish to go there but they must be rebutted at every opportunity.
I refer to the question of publishing advice. I made the point that the Minister is politically responsible for decisions and the Minister must take political responsibility in this House for decisions. Civil servants advise on these decisions but Ministers make them. I do not believe the endless publication of advice will improve matters. The Freedom of Information Act has seen a very good improvement in public administration and has thrown a wealth of information into the public domain already in respect of decision making processes. When it comes to the point of a decision, the exemptions provided for in the Freedom of Information Act are wise.
Personal Debt.
Ceisteanna (14)
Michael D'Arcy
Ceist:46 Deputy Michael D’Arcy asked the Minister for Finance the progress that has been made in developing a policy to assist persons who are experiencing difficulty in meeting debt repayment. [17146/10]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (32 píosaí cainte)
The renewed programme for Government sets out the Government's commitments to introduce new measures to protect families having difficulties with their mortgage repayments and personal indebtedness under the headings Protecting the Family Home and Helping Those in Debt.
In February of this year, I informed the Government of my proposals regarding expanding the membership of the interdepartmental mortgage arrears group, under the chairmanship of Mr. Hugh Cooney. The terms of reference of the group, which I have approved, reflect the commitments made by the Government both in the renewed programme for Government and in subsequent Government decisions relating to the issues of mortgage arrears and personal debt.
The revamped mortgage arrears and personal debt group has commenced its work and is meeting regularly. I understand that initially the emphasis will be on exploring the feasibility of a range of possible options for improving the level of mortgage support to homeowners in difficulty and will later address the personal debt issue. Proposals will be based on factual information gathered by the group and will take into account the findings of existing reports and mortgage support schemes in operation in other jurisdictions. I expect that these recommendations will be made to me on a rolling basis as the group progresses with its findings and that a final report on this phase of the review will be ready by end June 2010.
The Deputy will be aware of the other supports available to mortgage holders including the code of conduct on mortgage arrears, the mortgage interest subsidy scheme and the services provided by the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, all of which I have spoken extensively about in the House on many occasions.
In addition, the Law Reform Commission's consultation paper on personal debt management and debt enforcement, published in September 2009, contains an extensive list of provisional recommendations for reform of the law on personal debt. I understand the commission aims to have its final report available by the end of August this year. The group will be taking account of these recommendations as it proceeds to address the personal debt aspects of its terms of reference.
The Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Act 2009, provides that certain safeguards will apply to the provisions under which a court may hear an application or grant an imprisonment order against a debtor who has failed to comply with an instalment order. The Act ensures that the court will not imprison the debtor unless it is satisfied that he has the means to pay and may also postpone the execution of an imprisonment order until such time as it believes just. In addition, the court will inform a debtor of the risk of imprisonment and of his entitlement to apply for legal aid. The Act gives the court a clear power to vary the terms of an order to pay by instalments or alternatively to refer the parties for mediation.
I thank the Minister for the reply but it does not say much about anything. In respect of the code of conduct, is the Minister aware that the banks have already lodged thousands of cases with the courts? They are ready to go and when NAMA is substantially complete they will be able to go after the citizens of the country to ensure the bank figures are okay. However, the people will not be okay. I refer to those who have done it properly, who bought the average semi-detached house, who did not buy a big four-wheel drive or spend a fortune on a holiday. Those who are caught in that demographic profile, who bought at the peak and who did it properly should be given some further support from the State.
What is the question, Deputy?
The Minister has ignored questions on this matter. Will he not consider some form or small version of NAMA to ensure relief for the people who have done it properly and who have been fair and correct but who got caught at the wrong time?
The Deputy's questions betrays a misunderstanding about NAMA which I had hoped would have been cleared up by now, given Mr. McDonagh's recent presentation to the committee. When someone goes into NAMA, they continue to owe all the money, not part of it. If they are not prepared to pay the money, their assets are taken. This is what NAMA does. If the assets are unviable, apparently they will be bull-dozed in some circumstances. I appreciate this does not arise with a home owner. There is no equation between NAMA and the position of struggling homeowners. We do not propose that an agency should be set up which could in some sense insist they would pay all their money or be put out of their houses. This is not what is proposed.
What about the banks?
Realistic measures to ease the burden of the very group mentioned by the Deputy will be proposed by the commission that has been established to examine this issue. I took my first step in that direction in this year's Finance Act, when I ensured that mortgage interest relief was continued for this group beyond the seven-year period. Representatives of the Irish Banking Federation are on the working group. It is very important that arrangements are devised, as mentioned in the programme for Government, for longer repayment terms, interest-only repayments and delays, where appropriate, in repossession proceedings. All of this must be factored in. That is on what the commission is working.
I am keen to facilitate a number of Deputies.
That is in addition to the existing State investment, which takes place through the social welfare mortgage interest subsidy.
Does the Minister envisage that the proposals involving a resolution-type scheme, which would enable people to reduce their burden in terms of equity, will be accepted? Many young couples who bought houses at inflated prices during the Celtic tiger years are now in negative equity. Some of them, having lost their jobs, are losing the facility to make repayments through no fault of their own. Will a resolution scheme be included in the proposals to be brought forward by the Minister?
I will certainly ask the group to examine such a scheme. It seems to me that these difficulties are particularly acute for those who purchased in 2005 and 2006. I have drawn the commission's attention to that already.
I would like to ask the Minister about a proposal that has been consistently advocated by the Labour Party, from way back? We have suggested that a two-year framework be permitted so that people who have difficulties with mortgage debt can work through those difficulties. The banks have consistently refused to permit such a framework — they will allow only a year. Many banks commence legal proceedings almost as soon as mortgages enter into arrears. Will the Minister insist that the financial institutions accept part-payments? A regime of fines and penalties continues to be applied when people fall behind with their mortgage payments in any way. Some institutions will not accept part-payments, which is pushing people over the edge into complete default. That is what we are asking about.
I presume the reference to part-payments relates to sub-prime lenders, rather than to the main banks.
It relates to a variety of lenders.
It relates to all of them.
It includes notable lenders like Mr. Fingleton, who was the master in this regard. He went off with €27 million.
He was a sub-prime lender, as we know.
He was the master of penalties in his building society.
If the Deputy has particular details, she should forward them to the Financial Regulator so it can attend to them. As regards the extension of time, after last year's emergency budget I asked that consideration be given to extending the moratorium from six months to 12 months.
It is not enough.
It is irrelevant.
Following consultation, the regulator decided it would be possible to extend the moratorium in line with my request. The new limit of 12 months now applies to all regulated lenders and is reflected in the updated code, which came into effect on 17 February last.
Perhaps it can be extended to two years.
There is a balance to be struck when one is deciding on the amount of time that can be provided immediately.
Does the Minister accept that it seems to be the case that almost all of those who find themselves in mortgage arrears would like to reach agreements with the financial institutions involved? I hope any scheme that is proposed will take cognisance of that fact and try to facilitate those involved. In some areas of my constituency, there is a three-month waiting list to meet the Money Advice and Budgeting Service. I appreciate that the Minister is not directly responsible for the service. It is a serious matter for those who find themselves in trouble.
I would like to remind the Minister that placing representatives of the Irish Banking Federation on the oversight committee is like putting a fox in charge of a hen house.
I missed the Deputy's question.
I think it was more of a statement.
His throatiness sometimes brings his voice very low.
The Minister knows the rest.
I will bring the various submissions that have been made to date to the attention of the committee that has been established to examine this issue. The committee will bring a series of recommendations to me on an ongoing basis.
The Minister should not forget the fox in the hen house.
National Asset Management Agency.
Ceisteanna (15)
Joanna Tuffy
Ceist:47 Deputy Joanna Tuffy asked the Minister for Finance the number of National Asset Management Agency bonds that have been issued to date; the terms and the maturity; the proportion of these NAMA bonds that are subordinated; the number of NAMA bonds that are envisaged for issue by year end and in total; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17226/10]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (41 píosaí cainte)
In accordance with the NAMA legislation, 95% of the total acquisition value of the acquired portfolio of each participating institution will be in the form of Government guaranteed bonds and 5% will be in the form of subordinated bonds. The interest rate on the Government guaranteed bonds is the six-month EURIBOR, as reset on 1 March and 1 September of each year. The value of the total bond securities issued to date by NAMA is €3.538 billion of which €3.361 billion, or 95%, is Government guaranteed bonds and €177 million, or 5%, is subordinated bonds. That information is available on the NAMA website. On the basis of the assessment of applications from the five participating institutions, loans worth approximately €80 billion have been identified as eligible for transfer to NAMA. The consideration to be paid for these loans will depend on valuations, determined by the application of the valuation methodology approved by the EU Commission, of each of the eligible loans. Furthermore, section 50 of the NAMA legislation places a limit of €54 billion on the consideration to be paid for the loans regardless of the nominal amounts involved. This limit can be amended only by a positive resolution by the Dáil. I have no intention of adjusting this figure at this time.
The figure mentioned — €3.538 billion — is quite a small amount of transfers, in the context of the draft business plan the Minister presented to the Dáil at the time of the NAMA legislation. According to the Minister's plan, more than half of all the loans should have been dealt with by now, as we come into May. However, just a tiny proportion of them have been dealt with. What is the reason for the delay? How many Anglo Irish Bank loans are included in the €3.538 billion figure? How much of Anglo Irish Bank does it represent? To what extent has the long-term economic valuation been used? Has a new NAMA business plan been drawn up yet? If so, has it gone to the board or to the Minister? If not, where is it? How can one deal with €80 billion of loans and up to €55 billion of NAMA bonds without having a business plan? It does not seem to make sense.
The Deputy will be delighted to learn that none of her supplementary questions was anticipated. I refer to her question on the extent to which the economic value was taken into account in the assessment of the total value, for example. I will have to forward some of the information she sought to her at a later date. The business plan is a matter for the board of NAMA, which is responsible for its preparation. There was an interim plan, but it was revised.
That was the Minister's plan.
It required revision in light of the subsequent valuations.
It was off the rails.
I am sorry, but it was not my plan.
The Minister brought it in here.
Yes, but it was prepared by the interim chief executive of NAMA at the time. I did not interfere in the formulation of the plan.
The Minister presented it to the House as his plan.
I laid it before the House to help, assist and inform Members and to show that NAMA's work in progress was advanced. I certainly did not present it as a plan of my Department or of myself. It was prepared by the interim chief executive of NAMA on that basis, for the assistance of the House.
Is the Minister disowning NAMA now?
No, I am not disowning NAMA. I am simply explaining the basis on which I presented the document to the House. The Deputy has misrepresented the basis on which I handed the document into the House. I understand the board is engaged in the preparation of a revised business plan, to be published in June.
The Minister is contradicting himself regarding the draft business plan. He said earlier that Ministers are there to make decisions on the basis of the advice provided. He took a plan that was provided and presented it as Government policy. That plan was based on figures that were provided by the banks but were not examined by the Department in any way. When will the business plan be forthcoming? Will the Minister stand over that plan? Will he present it as a plan produced by someone else? What will be the eventual haircut in Anglo Irish Bank? We are hearing various reports of 50%, etc. What will be the eventual haircut? What does the Minister expect will be the final amount of NAMA bonds and subordinated bonds to be issued in respect of the whole NAMA process?
The valuation to date involves a discount of 47%, on an industry-wide basis. We should be aware that the figures vary between different institutions. We have a duty in this House to stop talking about the banks collectively, and to start talking about particular banks.
Is the Minister referring to Anglo Irish Bank?
I am not lecturing the Deputy or Deputy Burton.
I just want the question answered.
Allow the Minister to reply.
She is very scrupulous in that regard. There is still a tendency in that regard. On the question of the business plan, I understand from the board, which is responsible for the operation of NAMA, that it will approve a business plan by June of this year.
June?
June?
I mentioned that to the Deputy a moment ago.
We were expecting it at the end of May.
On the question of the total amount, it is clear it will be substantially less than the statutory limit of €54 billion, but I am not in a position to say until the valuation methodology is complete. The best estimate which can be given at this stage is that the final valuation will be broadly in line with the initial valuation of the initial tranche.
The Minister referred to the haircut for Anglo Irish Bank.
No final estimate can be given until the bottom-up valuation is done. What was the Deputy's question on Anglo Irish Bank?
What eventual haircut on the first tranche does the Minister expect? It still has not gone into NAMA.
Allow the Minister to reply.
As I understood it, a figure of 53% was the latest stage it had reached.
The Minister obviously has more up-to-date information.
Again, that figure remains to be finalised.
We can have one final question.
It is getting worse. It was 28%
Please, Deputy. Allow me to call the Deputy.
Can the Minister supply the information to us?
The Deputy will allow me to call her without shouting people down.
There are a lot of personal guarantees there.
Can the Minister undertake to supply to us in writing, as soon as possible, with the breakdown of the transfers which have taken place for each of the covered institutions, the amount of the discount to date and the total amounts? Everybody in the country is stunned by what has happened regarding Irish Nationwide, Mr. Fingleton's institution. As with Anglo Irish Bank, we would like the figures for it.
The Minister can make a final brief reply.
I will arrange for NAMA to forward the information to the Deputy. It is information which she should have at her disposal. On Irish Nationwide, there was a particular problem, namely, the failure to take security out on particular assets.
Fiscal Policy.
Ceisteanna (16, 17)
Martin Ferris
Ceist:48 Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Finance his views on the Mazars review of lending to small and medium-sized enterprise in the final quarter of 2009 which showed that SME lending was down by 3.6% in the year; when Bank of Ireland is required to submit its SME lending plan to his Department, as required under the terms of recapitalisation of the institution; if this lending plan will be presented to the Houses of the Oireachtas; when AIB and Bank of Ireland plan to start making the €3 billion in credit facilities, as required under the recapitalisation plan, available to small and medium-sized enterprises; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17098/10]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Sean Sherlock
Ceist:75 Deputy Seán Sherlock asked the Minister for Finance if he will comment on the most recent Mazars review of lending to small and medium-sized enterprise; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17219/10]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (10 píosaí cainte)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 48 and 75 together.
I consider it important to examine the overall picture in regard to credit for small and medium-sized enterprises, including positive aspects, and not to focus solely on negative aspects of the report. The third Mazars report on lending to small and medium-sized enterprises, which covers the period from October to December 2009, showed that credit applications in number and value terms rose slightly in the last quarter of 2009 over the previous quarter, which is encouraging. The level of applications for credit appear to be stabilising and Mazars also reported a small improvement in the overall credit approval rate.
However, the reduction in the stock of credit, as repayments exceed new credit, and in credit quality reported by the banks remains a concern for the Government. To address this concern, I announced earlier this month that AIB and Bank of Ireland are to make available a minimum of €3 billion each for new or increased credit facilities, including working capital targeted at small and medium-sized enterprises, in the real economy in each of the next two years. A letter was sent to Bank of Ireland and AIB on 7 April requiring them to prepare a small and medium-sized enterprise lending plan, broken down by sector and geography, for submission to my Department by 12 May. Both banks are expected to make the credit available immediately and should not wait until the plans are submitted.
The recently established credit review office is available to review banks' decisions to refuse credit to businesses. It will provide an independent opinion of the banks' decisions on whether the credit should have been granted or not. It is possible that the existence of the office could have an effect on the banks' behaviour in regard to credit. Businesses can also seek a review of a decision to reduce or withdraw credit. This should resolve the contentious issue of whether the banks are willing to lend to viable businesses.
I have taken a number of other actions to assist the credit situation regarding small and medium-sized enterprises. The two largest banks are required to provide €20 million each for seed capital to Enterprise Ireland-supported projects. They must each set up a €100 million fund for environmental, clean energy and innovation projects. In addition, the banks are required to commit to working with Enterprise Ireland and the IBF to develop sectoral expertise in the modern growth sectors, to explore with Enterprise Ireland and the IBF how best to develop the range of banking services that Irish small and medium-sized enterprises trading internationally will need. They are also required to develop expertise and credit products in areas where cashflow rather than assets is the basis for lending.
We will roll the questions together, if people will agree to that.
I thank the Minister for his reply. How rigorously will the banks' lending practices be scrutinised by Government to ensure that they are meeting their obligations and commitments? Is the Minister aware of another problem which is about to occur regarding lending by banks? The chief executive officer of Bank of Ireland, Mr. Richie Boucher, pronounced earlier this week that Bank of Ireland will raise interest rates for mortgage and business lending. Does the Minister share my concern that some of these banks may be prohibitively expensive in terms of their lending and that we are back to square one?
On the €3 billion, what is the situation regarding banks which are refusing to renew guarantees or rolling over existing lending facilities and describing that as new? How will that be identified and assessed?
Is the Minister aware that none of the three Mazars reports gives a breakdown? They are inadequate because they give no breakdown between new and existing lending, and between overdrafts and long-term loans. It is incredible that the banks are unable to provide that level of breakdown. It is clear there is a cover up because they are not willing to provide that level of breakdown.
Did the Minister note the figure in the Mazars report that lending to performing loans for small businesses was down by 25%? It an extraordinary squeeze on performing businesses which are the lifeblood of recovery. Has the Minister done any preparation on how he might frame credit directives, a power which he took in the legislation, if that becomes necessary?
I apologise for rolling all the questions together.
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. In a sense, Mazars has been superseded by the appointment of Mr. John Trethowan and the focus of the discussion was on Mazars. He is now engaged in his work and will be in a position to advise me on drawing up the type of regulation to which Deputy Bruton referred.
On the rolling over of arrangements and guarantees, I made it very clear in my statement on banking before Easter that the €3 billion is expected to relate predominantly to working capital and it is not excluded. It is not a matter of new lending. One of the difficulties has been that the banks have suggested, as Mazars has identified, that they are willing to give new lending. One of the core difficulties has been working capital, as the Deputy has consistently identified, and Mr. Trethowan is well aware of that.
I apologise to Deputy Morgan; the question is in the name of Deputy Ferris. What was the question?
My question was on the concerns regarding the banks increasing their lending rates to business to such an extent that it would be unaffordable. Can or will the Minister do anything about that in the event that it occurs?
There is very little we can do about that because the markets determine the rate at which we buy and sell money. I am confident that the measures begin taken at the European Central Bank will stabilise interest rates and prevent their undue increase.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.