Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister will know that, as we speak, the finance committee is hearing from the Central Bank on the issues relating to tracker mortgages. Everybody will agree that the way the banks have treated those on tracker mortgages is abominable, to say the least. Despite the Taoiseach's sudden interest in this issue, it did not just happen today or yesterday but has happened for many, many years. The last-minute attempts by the Government to threaten banks to fix it or face a levy will allow the banks and the Central Bank to get away with it without anybody being held accountable. This scandal has happened on a continuous basis over many years. Even after it was exposed and the banks were told to recompense customers, they slithered and slid away from what they were supposed to do legally, financially and morally.

Since 2015 the Central Bank has conducted an industry-wide examination of tracker mortgage-related issues, including where banks wrongly denied customers their contractual right to return to a tracker rate of interest following a period on a fixed rate. In February this year, eight months ago, the Central Bank confirmed that the total number of affected customers covered by this probe stood at a minimum of 13,000. Some of them told their tale before the committee last week. I do not know if the Minister has had a chance to hear it but it would stop him in his tracks to listen to the impact this has had on people's health, on that of their families, on their household incomes and on their ability to live their lives.

Banks have caused enough stress in this country. They brought the country to its knees and, given that experience, they should have woken up to their corporate responsibilities, their social responsibilities and their moral responsibilities. Alas it seems, from the manner in which they are handling this issue, they have not. One customer was being overcharged on their mortgage for over four years. In May 2016 they were put on the correct rate by the bank but, 17 months on, the customer is still to be repaid the €20,000 that was overcharged and the bank has yet to make an offer of redress or compensation.

Given the severity of this and the impact it has had on families and homes, why is the Central Bank being so soft and so relaxed on banks, particularly the State-owned banks? Why have the banks not been given an absolute deadline by which overcharged customers are to be repaid and compensated? Can the Minister confirm whether the Government has any legislative plans for increased levies on banks as a result of this issue? I am sure every party in this House will support an increased levy. If there are any such plans, when will the legislation be introduced?

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

In the view of the Government, any failures by the banks should be ruthlessly pursued. We have no truck with behaviour that brings people to the state of frustration and dismay we have seen. The Taoiseach was very clear yesterday that any powers the Central Bank needs will be provided and that the Government will not be afraid to take other measures, including enhancing the bank levy which is set to raise €750 million between now and 2021. The Minister for Finance will call in the banks and will address the issues the Deputy has raised. The Government takes this extremely seriously.

Everybody hates someone who stands up in the Dáil and says "I told you so" but when I was my party's spokesman on finance in 2004, when the Fianna Fáil Government introduced the Central Bank Bill I said very clearly that it was a defective Bill. It lacked the teeth for prudential regulation and consumer protection but that was the legislation that prevailed for much of the time this happened. There are limitations in some of the current legislative machinery but the Government will not tolerate banks failing in their obligations to their customers and to those people who have been particularly affected by the tracker mortgage issue.

The Deputy is right to say that, given the appalling trauma in our economy and our society caused by bad bank lending and poor regulation, there is now an absolute obligation on banks to fulfil their responsibilities to their clients. The Central Bank and the Government should and will take this very seriously.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister said the Government would have no truck with this behaviour but we have known about it since 2015 and banks have dragged their feet and have dragged people's lives through the muck since that time. The Minister has been in Cabinet since 2011 so if the legislation was defective and weak he has had six and a half years to fix it, but he has not. There seems to be no plan to do it, although there is a vague promise on the matter. Today's Irish Independentfeatures one customer, Garreth Murphy. The decision on his tracker mortgage is costing him an extra €500 per month, an extraordinary amount of money, but no remedy is being put on the table for him. His is one of nearly 20,000 similar accounts. At last week's committee meeting, one gentleman spoke of how he suffered a stroke and his wife suffered a nervous breakdown directly as a result of the stress caused to them. We cannot stand by and make false promises on this issue.

Can the Minister outline the legislative framework? The Taoiseach told us yesterday that the Minister for Finance would meet the banks next week to admonish them over their behaviour. What did he mean by "admonish"? The people affected do not need tea and sympathy but action, compensation and, most important, justice.

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

The Central Bank has been very clear that the proposals made by the banks are totally inadequate and it has initiated enforcement investigations over some of the behaviour of individual banks. It has made clear that it is engaging with other statutory bodies, including the Garda Síochána, so there is no flinching from pursuing this. Some of the failures occurred before the legislation giving new powers to the Central Bank came in and some of the defects were in the old legislation to which I referred.

The Government will take any steps necessary, legally or by giving the Central Bank additional powers, but one cannot provide powers retrospectively as regards some of these events. The Minister for Finance will be very clear as to the expectations of Government as regards bank behaviour.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There was dismay in the farming community and among farm organisations when it became clear that the Government's proposal to triple to 6% the rate of stamp duty on commercial property would apply to farmland, despite the assurances of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Sinn Féin supported an amendment tabled by Deputy Fitzmaurice in an attempt to amend the Government's proposal, but Fianna Fáil abstained when it was put to a vote and this measure therefore came into effect. I know the Minister has read Sinn Féin's alternative budget, which proposed to increase the rate of stamp duty on commercial property to 4%. As the banking inquiry pointed out, commercial real estate was one of the major causes of the banking crash. For that reason, it needs to be monitored and taxed appropriately and that is what we had in mind in our pre-budget submission. It was never our intention to make life even more difficult for Irish farmers.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If that is the case, Sinn Féin did not know what it was doing.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sinn Féin did not propose to exclude farmers.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the case of farmland, we are hearing that the exemptions will be extended in the finance Bill-----

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sinn Féin did not provide for any exemptions.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----by eliminating the cap that limits certain reliefs to those under the age of 67. This would negate the original purpose of the Government's measure, which was to incentivise the early lifetime transfer of land to the next generation and to encourage young farmers to extend their holdings. All this is being done now to cover up for the clear mistake the Government made in the budget. The core issue is that at a time when farm incomes are half the average industrial wage and many farm enterprises are not viable without being expanded, the Government is proposing to triple the level of stamp duty imposed on farmers who are trying to make their holdings viable.

The Minister, Deputy Creed, told us in his post-budget press conference that this increase would not apply to farmland. He said he wanted to "nail this one" and was adamant that "the increase in stamp duty [would] not apply to agricultural land". Did the Minister or his advisers not know what the Minister for Finance was proposing, or did they get it wrong? Fine Gael portrays itself as the farmers' party and has always had that tradition. However, the disregard for rural Ireland in the current Cabinet is so severe that this measure was introduced without any consideration of its consequences for the farming community and without any consultation with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine. At a time of low incomes and Brexit pressures, when reduced Common Agricultural Policy payments are coming down the road, is the Government happy to stand over a threefold increase in the level of stamp duty imposed on a farmer who wishes to extend his or her holding to make it viable?

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

It is important to put this measure in context. The Deputy has shown some understanding of this. We have a strong commercial sector, but our housing sector is not meeting the needs of the people. Our intention in introducing this measure is to secure a switch in activity to the housing area, where it is badly needed. The Minister has provided for a relief that will apply to any sale of farmland that is then used for residential purposes. He has also provided for capital gains tax measures and for a new fund that will support developers to develop land for housing. This is part of a group of measures, the aim of which is to deliver one of the most important needs of our people. The position in relation to stamp duty on commercial property, which includes certain categories of farmland, is that there will be an increase to the new 6% rate. It is not going back to the 9% rate that prevailed in the past. There are very significant exemptions, as the Deputy knows. There are exemptions for young farmers, for transfers within families when holdings are being consolidated and for sales that result in the land being used for housing purposes within a specified 30-month period. These significant concessions will ensure genuine farmers who are trying to transfer to the new generation and young farmers who are entering farming are protected.

As the Deputy has rightly said, the finance Bill will include additional provisions to deal with some anomalies in the system, such as the provision that means people over a certain age face a higher level of stamp duty. A period of time will be given to allow such transfers to occur. The Deputy has also rightly mentioned that in the longer term we want to see earlier transfers. This measure will be reviewed after a certain period to ensure our intention, which is to encourage earlier transfer, is remaining an important part of our approach to farmland. I cannot speak for Sinn Féin's intentions in submitting its proposals. I did not see any such exemption outlined in its document. I am not accountable for Sinn Féin's intentions. Sinn Féin rightly pointed out in its pre-budget submission that this is a justifiable measure. It is now being introduced. I think reasonable reliefs are being put in place to ensure it does not have unintended consequences for the sorts of farming transfers we want to see happen.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will explain what the unintended consequences are. We all know farmers around the country with small pieces of land who are working very hard and struggling to survive and raise their families. The only way forward for them is to expand when land comes up for sale beside their farms. Many of them cannot get the money from the bank to extend their holdings in such circumstances. The issue here is the decision to increase the level of stamp duty imposed on such transactions from 2% to 6%. I acknowledge that this change will not apply to young farmers under the age of 35 who have green certs. Many farmers are not in that category, particularly in the dairy industry where farmers are expanding significantly. They will not get any exemption because they are over the age of 35. It is clear that this measure was not thought through. When it was introducing it, the Government did not realise that farmers were going to be caught. Now that it has realised that, and the backlash is under way, it is attempting to do something about it. Clearly, its attempts are not enough because they are not dealing specifically with struggling farmers who want to expand their holdings. That is the problem we need to sort out. I appeal to the Minister and the Government to do something in the upcoming finance Bill to ensure the 6% provision does not extend to farmers in this position.

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

I entirely disagree with the Deputy. If the owner of a small business involved in some other activity wished to expand his or her business, it would be quite unjust if he or she were subject to a different tax regime from a farmer with a small holding who wished to expand.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We all know the-----

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

The Deputy must recognise that the many small family businesses in this country need to be treated equitably. That is why this is designed as it is. There are certain reliefs for farmland because we want to see young people move into farming, we want to see consolidation and, in certain cases, we want to see farmland released for housing purposes. The concessions are designed to achieve what we want to achieve as a community.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The concessions are for developers.

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

We are not introducing a blanket system in which small business and farms are treated on a completely different basis. The Deputy will acknowledge that it would not be equitable or fair to single out one group of small businesspeople in his constituency and treat it differently. Where there is a public purpose to be achieved, such as securing farmland for building, releasing land to young farmers, consolidating holdings or providing for earlier transfer, that is a worthwhile achievement and that is what is being provided for.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not being provided for.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

After his election earlier this year, the Taoiseach made a commitment to double funding for the arts and culture over the coming years. It was an imitation of a pledge made by his good friend, Justin Trudeau. It created great hope and expectation across the arts community. Unlike his Canadian friend, the Taoiseach did not follow through on what he had said with a serious commitment in the budget. The chair of the Arts Council has described next year's allocation to the arts as a "huge disappointment". If the rate of increase set out in the budget is continued with, it will take another 21 years to achieve the Taoiseach's commitment to the arts. There is great uncertainty among the arts community at the moment. The National Campaign for the Arts has expressed concern about the focus in the Creative Ireland programme on publicity and marketing rather than long-term and sustainable policy change and investment.

Last year, the then Minister for Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs published a draft national cultural framework policy, known as Culture 2025. It horrified campaigners in the arts. After much pressure in this House - I raised the matter on Leaders' Questions - the then Taoiseach agreed to refer the framework policy to an Oireachtas committee before it was finalised. When the committee published its report in July of this year, it included 42 recommendations aimed at bringing about a shift in the Government's approach to arts and culture. As the all-party committee noted, "A policy without a clear definition of its objective is blind, a policy without legislation is discretionary and a policy without the necessary resources .... is paralysed." It is unclear whether the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, intends to pay any attention to the committee's report or to plough ahead with the initial framework she published last year.

We have no clear definition of objectives and no underpinning legislation and I see none is planned in the legislative programme. We have no commitment to provide the required funding for its implementation. Does the Minister accept that the paltry increase in funding for the Arts Council was already committed to and that, therefore, in real terms, it is not additional money? Will he give a renewed commitment to double the funding for the sector over a five-year period? Will he give us a sense of when we can expect to receive a final version of Culture 2025 and indicate whether the recommendations of the committee in that regard will be heeded?

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

I thank the Deputy for raising the issue. It is an area in which the Government is very ambitious and, of course, it will take time to realise those ambitions. The publication of the Creative Ireland programme was a milestone. One of the lessons drawn from the very successful 1916 Rising celebrations was that we could celebrate and use our cultural heritage as a significant asset for the people. In that regard, I am very pleased that we are starting in the education area. With the Minister, Deputy Heather Humphreys, we will start the Creative Children initiative this year, for which we have set aside money in the budget. The Minister has also set out an ambitious capital programme for the arts and culture this year which will be enhanced in the ten-year capital programme soon to be announced.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A scheme I funded before I left office.

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

It will be an investment in the long-term asset of the cultural base. On a year to year basis, as the Deputy knows, this has been a very difficult financial year. We did not have significant sums of money available to us. Nonetheless, the allocation to the Arts Council was increased by €9 million, while funding for the Irish Film Board was increased by 9%. Significant initiatives are being taken across the arts. The ambition of the Taoiseach is that we should develop along the line of strategies, in particular the Creative Ireland concept, whereby we view the arts as an important asset for the people and a major part of the way in which young people are educated. There is a commitment to the arts which has been matched on the capital side and, in so far as is possible, the current side. It will be backed up by the ten-year capital programme for which I know the Minister, Deputy Heather Humphreys, has very ambitious plans.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is simply not a fact. There is no getting around the fact that the commitment to double funding over a set period raised expectations among the arts community which were dashed when no additional real money was allocated to the Arts Council. If the Government is serious about this, it should not make commitments and then state there are particular constraints in a given year. It should set out in clear terms the timescale over which arts funding is to be doubled. When will the 2020 vision for the arts be debated in the House? Will the recommendations of the all-party committee be reflected in the revised document?

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

I am sure the Business Committee will be very happy to arrange a debate on the issue. There is no doubt that the Creative Ireland programme, the context for development in this area over a number of years, sets out very significant ambitions which will be reflected in the capital programme. They include the ambition to support new art centres, theatres, galleries, museums and heritage centres, the sort of thing which can make a difference in the use and enjoyment of our cultural heritage. That is very much part of the Government's plan. To be fair, since 2014 the budget for the Arts Council has increased by 20%. I have no doubt that it uses the money extremely well to leverage activities, festivals, bursaries and so on across the artistic community. As to when we will make money available, the Taoiseach's ambition for the arts and culture sector will be a major feature of decisions made in future budgets.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know if the Minister is aware that the European Commissioner for Transport is due in Ireland today or tomorrow to meet the Irish Aviation Authority, IAA. Coincidentally, the meeting of the Joint Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport was cancelled this week. We were due to hear from representatives of the Irish Air Line Pilots' Association, IALPA, but for the second time the meeting was cancelled. There are different arguments as to the reasons for the cancellations. There was some very important evidence to be given by Ryanair pilots to the committee. I know that the media are worried about covering this issue because a lot of advertising revenue is generated by Ryanair, but it is a very serious issue in terms of the level of public interest. We are compromised on the question of aviation safety in this country because of the relationship between the IAA and the airlines it is supposed to regulate.

Given that 700,000 passengers recently faced disruption due to the cancellation of Ryanair flights, the light thrown on the airline's activities in respect of health and safety and the irregular working hours and conditions of pilots, does the Minister think it is important that pilots address the joint committee? Should the outcome of whatever discussions the Commissioner has with the IAA today be made public in the House?

I have very serious and genuine concerns about the protection of the public interest. I am not trying to stir things up, but we need to listen carefully to what the pilots have to say and what they are saying about the regulatory authorities. The chief concern is that the IAA, unlike all other authorities regulating aviation across Europe, was set up on a commercial for-profit basis. It collect charges and other revenue from the very airlines it regulates. It collects most of its revenue from Ryanair. To give an idea of the amount of money involved, last year the IAA made a profit of almost €40 million. Its CEO, Mr. Eamonn Brennan, receives a salary of €344,000 a year. The IAA regulates the safety of the airlines from which it is making money. There is a toxic relationship between the regulatory authority which looks after air safety and the means by which it collects its revenue. As I said, such an arrangement is illegal in many European countries and there are significant implications for the working conditions of the pilots concerned, an issue I will discuss. Is the Minister aware of this relationship? Does he think it compromises the safety of civil aviation in this country? Does he think it is acceptable that the IAA has been established on a profit-making basis which allows it to have what could, at best, be described as a dysfunctional relationship with the airlines it regulates?

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

I understand the Commissioner is addressing the transport committee. I have no control over the agenda set by the committee.

No doubt there are many issues of concern, not least about what will happen following Brexit and the impact it might have, as well as the safety of passengers. It is my understanding Ryanair flights were disrupted because the safety of passengers was the priority, rather than the commercial interests of the company which were not served by the decisions taken. The company had to put up its hand and admit to its failings. That is an example of regulation working.

On the question of whether regulators in general should be funded by levies imposed on the industries they regulate, it is common practice in the case of most regulatory bodies. The reason for it is that while regulation is important, the general taxpayer should not pay when the industry should pay by way of registration fees for the oversight of services a regulator provides. It is important to the reputation of the industr, which is very clearly set out in the legislation.

The source of the payments in no way compromises the authority's primary commitment to safety. It is accountable to this House and others for how it executes its mandate. It can be called to account at any stage. The use of levies, whether in banking or other regulated sectors, to meet the cost of regulation is a common practice across all jurisdictions.

We have used the model in most of our regulator activities. It has never been shown to compromise in any way the exercise of the statutory obligations of these authorities.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I disagree on that.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I dispute that this is common practice as Ireland has the only aviation authority in Europe using this model. It is possible to separate the authorities that collect revenue from airlines through the taxation system, for example, and the authority that regulates how the airlines operate. This goes to a bigger issue. The Minister states the safety of passengers was at the heart of the cancellations but that is not the case. Pilots are exiting Ryanair in their hundreds because there is a global shortage and the structures used by Ryanair to establish the employment of pilots is illegal elsewhere in Europe. It is highly irregular and is being investigated by two revenue groups in Britain and Germany. The governments in Britain and Germany are investigating pilots who live there for potential tax fraud. Imagine the stress this would put on pilots. There is a complex reason for this as the pilots are forced to be self-employed and their work is traded between various companies. Those companies and the pilots are being investigated. The pilots are also being pressurised to cut down on the use of fuel. It was denied that the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport discussed that with the Irish Aviation Authority. This is a can of worms and a dirty game. Somebody is keeping quiet about many injustices and there is much money being made. What the Minister says is not true. This is highly irregular.

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

If the Deputy at any stage wants to raise questions with the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport about legal changes, it is open to her to do that. We have robust labour law in this country to protect workers and robust aviation authorities to protect the safety of passengers. I have seen no evidence of failing on the part of those authorities. If there are failings the Deputy wants to bring to our attention, the Deputy and her party can cross-examine these authorities in committee, where they would be open and accountable as per their statutory mandate.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They do not know the pilots are coming in.

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

It is part of what we do and part of our business is to hold these authorities to account. I do not do it. The Deputy has the same right and opportunity as everybody else to call in representatives of these authorities and hold them to account. She can put the points and let them answer.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps somebody could have a word with the Minister, Deputy Ross, and tell him to hold them to account.

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

It is a robust system of accountability that should be used.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are not being held to account.