Eoghan Murphy (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 200, Standing Order 154 is modified to permit an instruction to the Committee on the Single Resolution Board (Loan Facility Agreement) Bill 2016, that it has power to make provision in the Bill to provide for:- amending the Companies Act 2014 to refer explicitly to the new European market abuse regime in section 1365 of that Act. This will ensure the continuation of the existing offences and high-level penalties (on indictment, up to €10 million in fines and-or up to 10 years imprisonment) for insider trading and market manipulation; and

- the necessary consequential amendments to the Long Title.

The motion relates to proposed additions to the Companies Act 2014. I thank the Opposition spokespersons for their co-operation in this matter. As I mentioned in my opening contribution on Second Stage of the Single Resolution Board (Loan Facility Agreement) Bill 2016, the Department of Finance is transposing the recent European market abuse regulations and market abuse directives into Irish law. On legal advice, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, will bring forward an amendment to the Companies Act 2014 by way of this Bill to refer explicitly to the new European market abuse regime in section 1365 of that Act.

This will ensure the continuation of the existing offences and high-level penalties on indictment of up to €10 million in fines and up to ten years imprisonment for insider trading and market manipulation.

As a result of the amendments, the Short Title to the Bill will be amended to the Finance (Certain European Union and Intergovernmental Obligations) Bill 2016, which will necessitate associated amendments to the Long Title. This is a small technical change, recommended by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, which will ensure that the Titles will be fully accurate.

On the Bill more generally, I again emphasise the importance of early completion of the passage of the Bill to enable implementation of a hugely significant part of the EU banking legislative agenda. It will also ensure that Ireland meets its banking union obligations, as agreed with other member states that have already either put the loan facility agreement in place or are about to do so, as there was a commitment, following the European Finance Ministers' agreement on the approach last December, that this needed to be put in place by 1 January 2016.

I look forward to Committee Stage of the Bill when I can discuss the amendments and the Bill as a whole in greater detail with Deputies.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I made my substantive contribution on Second Stage. I support the motion and I look forward to a detailed Committee Stage debate as soon as possible.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I note the Minister of State's remarks in his reply to Second Stage on some of the more technical aspects of the legislation, which we will discuss in detail on Committee Stage. We will participate and engage with the Minister of State in this regard at that point.

As I mentioned on Second Stage, tacking on unrelated amendments to other legislation is not something with which I or my party agree. If there is another item of legislation or amendment which does not fit into this Bill and if it is so urgent and important, then it deserves its own process. It was signalled two weeks ago that this would happen. I am not sure why we did not have stand-alone legislation which would allow it to happen. I understand there are times when we need to facilitate what is happening here, and this may be one of those times. My party does not intend to oppose the motion - let us deal with it. However, it is a case of putting down a marker because this should only happen in extreme cases where it is necessary and where there is no other option but to introduce it. I am not convinced that is the scenario in this instance. When Second Stage began, we were informed that the legislation was urgent and needed to be passed as soon as possible. Much of the language used was of that nature and I dispute whether there was a need for it. It is contradictory, therefore, for the Minister of State to add this complication to something that has been described as so urgent.

I will bring forward amendments on Committee Stage and they deserve attention. We will obviously be obliged to scrutinise the amendment being brought forward by the Minister of State. It seems straightforward enough. I do not have any big issue with it but I would appreciate if a note were circulated on the details so we can have as best scrutiny as possible of it on Committee Stage.

Are we turning the legislation into a miscellaneous provisions Bill? How will it now be structured? Is it open to a free-for-all whereby we can put in any type of tag-ons? Has the Minister of State opened the bottle and now it is the case that we are not able to put the cork back in, God help us? The legislation is important. It puts in place another part of the banking union jigsaw. When it is all put together it will have serious weaknesses and this is one of the big problems. This is why we need to discuss it on Committee Stage. We need to look at the direction in which we are going. The promise of a genuine policy at EU level to stop sovereigns from being dragged down by banks has, sadly, not been realised. There was much potential here. Many good statements and initiatives were made at the time suggesting that this was going to be something different to what has materialised.

Banking union has not tackled the issue of banks which are too big to fail, while disputes about the deposit insurance scheme grind on without any resolution whatsoever. Member states cannot even agree on whether Article 114 is the appropriate legal basis for the scheme, and eight years on from the banking collapse we are debating the legal basis. This is before we start discussing how these deposits should be protected and how we should put in place a system whereby a bailout through abuse of the deposit systems will be put in place. None of these issues has been clarified and they are all trundling on. It is of concern that we are losing ground in the context of the potential of what it could be or what it was originally envisaged to be.

In reply to a parliamentary question last week, the Minister told me negotiations on a common backstop would only start in September. I agreed with the Minister that a backstop should be in place as soon as possible, but the most important thing is that we have it as far away as possible from the sovereign.

On the issue of how sovereign exposure is treated, the Minister has said that a global approach is best and that work on the deposit scheme should continue on a technical level before moving to the political level. I do not doubt that banking union is a hugely complex area but, equally, I do not doubt that much of the reforming process and energy has been spent.

Many of the core issues at stake, such as breaking up banks that are too big to fail and an absolute separation of banking and sovereign debt, have been muddled or simply dropped. This is a big concern of Sinn Féin. In the meantime, while negotiations are set to meander on for some years, we remain exposed. It sends shivers down our spines - because we have been here before - when we hear Ministers tell us our banks are well capitalised and that this will never be called upon. I am not suggesting that today is like the past, but I spoke to people out and about in the aftermath of Brexit. The Minister, Deputy Noonan, stated that the NTMA has indicated that we are well funded and people began to wonder whether the implications of Brexit were that serious because Ministers were saying such things. They experienced déjà vuabout where the country could go.

The reality is that we remain exposed because there has not been a complete break between sovereign and banking debt. The shock of Brexit has, at least for now, reduced the values of bank shares. There are serious concerns - I am sure the Department shares them in light of its briefing - about the viability of Permanent TSB in the long term. This is an issue which has not gone away and which is not going away. That bank completely oversold itself by suggesting it would make 10% returns for investors, something which it simply could not achieve. It has major problems with tracker mortgages and other matters. We are so far into this process that, in 2016, we are still dealing with an institution which may not be here in the future and which may have to merge with one of the other banks.

There are serious issues with regard to this matter. As I stated, I will not object to the motion. However, I have reservations about this type of process. While we will not object to it now, I strongly signal that Sinn Féin would not facilitate this if it became more common practice on the part of the Government.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for their constructive contributions. To answer Deputy Pearse Doherty, when I originally spoke on the legislation several weeks ago, I referred to its importance and the need to move on it quickly. He pointed out that if something is important, we should take our time with it. He is absolutely right in this regard. To clarify, this is important and, therefore, I hope it can be a priority for us to get it through the House now and that we will take the appropriate time on Committee Stage to go through the details. For my part, I had hoped we would have taken this sooner but scheduling issues got in the way.

With regard to the comments I made on the banks, we rightly draw from a shared experience of the banking inquiry. We do not want to draw improper parallels, but the fund will be backed by bank levies. It will not be backed by the sovereign or the taxpayers. Any drawdown on the loan in the interim, if it were to happen, would be paid back by bank levies and not by the taxpayer.