Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Can the Minister provide the House with the value of the eligible deposits that will be covered by this new regulation? Can he provide the value of other elements that were guaranteed in September, as well as the elements of the banks' liabilities that are not guaranteed? It would be useful to the House to have a tabular statement of all the deposits, such as the deposits covered by the €100,000 guarantee, the deposits and other liabilities covered by the September guarantee, as well as details of the liabilities in the banks' balance sheet that are not covered. That would be useful information. If the Minister does not have the material today I would be happy for him to furnish it subsequently.

Noel O'Flynn (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Burton tabled an amendment to this section, amendment No. 2, which seeks to insert a new section that would apply the Freedom of Information Act 1997 to the Central Bank, the Financial Regulator, the NTMA, the National Development Fiance Agency and the National Pensions Reserve Fund. The provisions of the Bill do not include any reference to freedom of information or any of these agencies except the Central Bank. The amendment is out of order because it is outside the scope of the Bill.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Bill contains extensive references to the Central Bank and the Financial Services Authority of Ireland, two of the institutions the Labour Party proposes should be subject to freedom of information legislation. This country is guaranteeing debt to an unbelievable extent, at least €440 billion, with the guarantee of last September. We do not yet have a complete analysis of the composition of the guarantee other than knowing the names of the institutions it covers. The Minister announced in the budget that between €80 billion and €90 billion of impaired loans would be transferred to NAMA at an unknown cost to the taxpayer but which stockbrokers suggest would be transferred at a discount of only 20%.

Noel O'Flynn (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I had to rule on this point and we cannot have a debate on it.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to make this point briefly. It is extraordinary that the biggest financial deal ever entered into by an Irish Government, on the back of the taxpayer, for unknown quantities of money should be entirely exempt from the right of those of us in this House or under freedom of information legislation to obtain information. This is in direct contrast to what happens in the US, where the maximum amount of information is made available, including particular facilities such as congressional oversight committees and freedom of information legislation. Part of the difficulty is that financially we are seriously impaired as a consequence of the Government's action. Taxpayers are seriously impaired and are paying extra taxes. This Government wants to have a complete blanket ban on giving information except the information it chooses to give.

I accept that Deputy O'Flynn is just in the Chair now but I have no idea why the Ceann Comhairle has made the ruling, given the extensive references in the Bill to the Central Bank and the Financial Services Authority of Ireland. They are mentioned all over this Bill, as are financial instruments and deposits etc., which are included in the guarantee scheme. There is also reference to the covered institutions, those subject to the guarantee and those not subject to the guarantee. The argument put forward by the Department of Finance is entirely specious and unfair. It is in the tradition of the Department of Finance to refuse any reasonable amendments to finance legislation on the grounds that the Department of Finance does not do amendments.

Noel O'Flynn (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are now discussing section 1.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If we are discussing section 1, I would like to make a contribution on the section after Deputy Rabbitte.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support the request by Deputy Bruton for the tabular breakdown. The Minister cannot rhyme it off but it would be of great assistance to us. In the case of one of the institutions encompassed by section 1, Anglo Irish Bank, the Taoiseach and the Minister have taken to using a figure of over €60 billion as the cost of winding it down. The figure has come under attack by those who could broadly be called experts in respect of the breakdown between commercial deposits by large corporations, retail deposits from non-corporates and whatever moneys are available from the interbank market, perhaps of the order of €30 billion. I would like to see these figures because it is time we made a decision on it.

I watched Alan Dukes, the public interest director, on "Questions and Answers" on Monday night. He is a man for whom I have a lot of regard but I was unnerved by his performance. It seems he has become a captive of the institution and faithfully rhymed off the official position. His attempt to explain how the bank has deteriorated dramatically in six months was not convincing. Six months ago it reported a profit of €784 million, six months later there is a €4.1 billion deficit. The impaired loans shot up by a factor of ten. Alan Dukes's explanation was that although this was known at the time, the laws of accountancy - his phrase, not mine - prevented it being reported. I have great difficulty if that is the public interest position being vindicated. Whatever the laws of accountancy say, if that was the state of the bank six months ago, we ought to have been told that in the public interest. Whatever the formal requirements of the rules of accountancy, the public and the reputation of the country stands to lose so much and the implications for the rest of the economy and the banking system are such that we should have been told this. I had some hope that when public interest directors were sent in, they would function in the public interest and be seen to do so. Deputy Bruton's proposal on the tabular statement is necessary because it is difficult for the rest of us to come to terms with this huge elephant in the room that is staring us in the face concerning Anglo Irish Bank. Depending on how one looks at the figures of Brian Lucey, in a recent article responding to the Minister, the figure seems closer to €32 billion or €33 billion than €60 billion or €62 billion. If it is a choice between supplying €4 billion or forgoing €33 billion, I am with the Minister.

More fundamental questions are raised and we do not know where we are going, what is the plan or the intention for the future. We will be stuck with the effect of these decisions for between 20 and 30 years. A great number of Members are at sea in terms of the facts and being able to assess them. We should be in possession of the real information if we are to make these decisions.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When the Minister is considering providing tabular information, can he examine the breakdown between credit unions, the banks, the covered and uncovered institutions and provide the average range of deposits per institution so that we can get an idea of the level of deposits per institution?

Noel O'Flynn (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If Deputy Burton wishes to see the Ceann Comhairle about her amendment, it will arise in section 12 and the Deputy will be able to speak on it then. She has until that time to see the Ceann Comhairle about his decision.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yesterday we discussed how the Labour Party called for the extension of the deposit guarantee scheme some time before the Government acknowledged there was a serious financial crisis in our banking system last September and before it rushed into the ill-fated guarantee. The Labour Party is on record as proposing a significant increase in the deposit guarantee structure in Ireland.

The Minister did not respond yesterday on the problem in this Bill. This legislation is simply one part of a strategy to address the consequences of the guarantee from last September, which is to split as many of the consequences of the scheme into separate pieces of legislation and bring them separately before the House so we do not have a comprehensive picture of what the Minister and his officials are proposing.

For example, either next week or the week after there will be another miscellaneous financial provisions Bill before this House which will include an extraordinary proposal to give the Minister, among other powers, a right to extend the guarantee after September 2010 indefinitely - for as long or short a period as he so wishes - by way of a ministerial order. As people in this House know, this means, in effect, the Minister will have that power to himself.

I presume that Bill will come in next week. Like today's Bill, Second Stage will be taken on one day and Committee and Remaining Stages will be taken on the next day. We will not get any of the financial details we require to make a judgment as a responsible Opposition and Members of the Dáil.

The Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance, Deputies Cowen and Brian Lenihan, claimed last September that this was a milestone in international banking because of the cleverness of the guarantee. It has gone from being a milestone to being a millstone around the neck of every man, woman and child in this country for this generation and possibly the next.

This finance Bill contains no figures other than the amount of the guarantee. This comes from the same people in the Department of Finance who told us the fundamentals were fine and who fell over each other before the finance committee to say so on various days. There was a chorus of cheerleaders in the Central Bank, the Financial Regulator and the financial institutions but it was led by the Department of Finance, which indicated that the fundamentals were fine and we were well prepared to weather the storm.

We are now getting the first in a series of different pieces of legislation to, in effect, create the NAMA structure in perpetuity so that not only will this Government have a policy but in the event of a change of Government, a subsequent Government will have its hands tied because much of the policy will have been undertaken by then. There will have been very little detailed financial information except for what is gleaned in a piecemeal fashion.

This amounts to an act of bad faith by the Department of Finance and the Minister with respect to Dáil Éireann because we are not getting the required information. We have not been told of the level of deposits. I told the Minister I asked questions about this early last year and I have the replies of the then Minister for Finance regarding deposit levels in credit unions and banks in the jurisdiction.

It is wrong of the Minister to come here without a financial brief telling us the level of deposits covered through this Bill in covered and other institutions. What is the composition of those deposits? This legislation as it relates to deposit insurance essentially arises from European regulation and legislation and we have no proper definition in the Irish context of what it means. For example, can a group of bond holders move deposits from a category of bond or secured instrument into and out of deposits?

Yesterday I raised with the Minister the specific issue of the former managing director and chairman of Anglo Irish Bank, who we know owes significant millions to the bank in property loans. It was reliably reported in newspapers a few weeks ago and not denied that this gentleman also had deposits amounting to a number of millions in Anglo Irish Bank, and there was no recourse to these deposits in regard to the lending undertaken by this man from Anglo Irish Bank. We were told by Mr. O'Connor before an Oireachtas committee and in the recent report of Anglo Irish Bank that directors' loans amounting to €31 million were being categorised and essentially written off as bad debts. That is where we are today.

Directors' deposits are subject to the guarantee in so far as they are deposits below the €100,000 mark. The taxpayer, who now owns Anglo Irish Bank and is writing off tens of millions of euro in bad debts - some in respect of the same director - has no recourse between the debts and the deposits. I asked the Minister about this yesterday and it is wrong of him not to explain it. For the ordinary people on the street, a deeply unfair aspect of this is that they see their taxes going up and their take-home pay going down while at the same time, the directors who ran this bank off the cliff and on to the rocks have special arrangements. The Minister is not prepared to tell us what the arrangements are.

If the public is bailing out this bank to the tune of €60 billion-----

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Did the Deputy say €60 billion?

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister indicated the cost of winding up this bank immediately could be as high as €60 billion.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is up-front.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Various people speaking on behalf of the bank have said the cost could be as high as €60 billion, with newspaper articles echoing that. Nevertheless, the Minister is refusing to tell us what the ordinary person on the street wants to know. The Minister will immediately commit €4 billion in extra equity to Anglo Irish Bank and everybody agrees that although that money has pretty much gone down the drain, it is keeping the bank afloat. The Minister is still not prepared to tease out and give us the detailed information on who are the depositors and beneficiaries.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not have that information.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What is the classification of the different types of debt in the bank?

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not have such information and the Deputy knows I should not have it.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister should have it. Why should he not? He is the Minister and it is our money. He carries the responsibility for it.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am the shareholder in this bank. Deputy Burton has often boasted of her accountancy and commercial knowledge in this House and should be aware that I do not have that information at my disposal.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have never boasted about anything. Why does he not have the information?

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My Department does not have it.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why?

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A shareholder in a bank is not entitled to confidential bank or customer information, which Deputy Burton knows perfectly well.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

So the Minister does not know anything about the bank but we are bailing it out.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We know a great deal about this bank, unfortunately.

Noel O'Flynn (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister, without interruption.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Shareholders of any bank are not entitled to find out personal information about customers, which Deputy Burton knows perfectly well. I agree that the request for a tabular breakdown is very sensible and I would like to put on the record as much as I can in that regard.

The Central Bank has indicated it is only possible to roughly estimate the value of deposits covered by this scheme in this legislation, where the compensation limit is €100,000. Its estimate is based on the total value of deposits surveyed for the 11 institutions which were potentially eligible for the Government guarantee, which was approximately €170 billion. The Central Bank indicates that these form the vast majority of the deposits covered by the deposit guarantee scheme and estimates that approximately 40%, or €70 billion, of these deposits would be covered by the deposit guarantee scheme. On top of this we can add the €12.4 billion of deposits held in credit unions, thus giving an overall figure of approximately €82 billion covered by the deposit guarantee scheme.

The deposit guarantee scheme does not cope with a systemic financial crisis. In such a scenario, a Government intervention to restore confidence might be necessary, as we have seen both here and in other countries over the past year. Deposit guarantee schemes are more likely to be used in once-off positions and can be seen as just one part of the financial safety net. However, they can be helpful in protecting an otherwise solvent institution from failure.