Results 16,741-16,760 of 19,445 for speaker:Brian Cowen

Leaders' Questions. (19 May 2010)

Brian Cowen: To assist small businesses, or any business, we have to get banking back to its core function of providing credit to the real economy. That required recapitalisation of the banks and the provision of credit. The credit review arrangements we have put in place under Mr. Trethowen allow appeals by viable but vulnerable businesses against bank decisions which they feel are unjustified.

Leaders' Questions. (19 May 2010)

Brian Cowen: Why refer to him as a political operator then?

Leaders' Questions. (19 May 2010)

Brian Cowen: In setting out the recapitalisation plans for the banks, the Minister for Finance gave a statement to the House indicating that he is awaiting sectoral plans from the banking system in respect of those banks that are in the process of recapitalising. Bank of Ireland is doing so currently. It is about making sure the €3 billion per year that the Minister has outlined for this year and next...

Leaders' Questions. (19 May 2010)

Brian Cowen: First, I do not accept the Deputy's misrepresentation of the speech I set out last Thursday. Second, I was simply pointing out that the causes of our problem relate both to the international crisis and to the vulnerabilities identified in the Irish economy. Third, despite Opposition contentions to the contrary suggesting that we did nothing about the situation or were indifferent to it, I...

Leaders' Questions. (19 May 2010)

Brian Cowen: Fourth, I set out what lessons were to be learned based on what we now know. I refer Members to the full speech and ask that they not accept the characterisation Deputy Gilmore places on it. One of the points I made was that the balance of evidence suggested that the vulnerabilities in the economy could affect the soft landing for the construction industry. I made the point that I was the...

Leaders' Questions. (19 May 2010)

Brian Cowen: I am sure they were based on the best judgments and advice then available. I did not oppose them at the time. In hindsight one can look back on many issues. What I said candidly was that looking at it now, knowing what subsequently happened, one will see that the elimination of property-based incentives could have happened sooner. In hindsight that would be the way in which one would try...

Leaders' Questions. (19 May 2010)

Brian Cowen: The suggestion that this Government or previous Fianna Fáil-led Administrations were indifferent to the problem is not correct. I also made the point that in the run-up to the last election there were Opposition Members suggesting that we needed to reduce stamp duty further, which would have led to even greater increases in property prices.

Leaders' Questions. (19 May 2010)

Brian Cowen: Again the Deputy seeks to synopsise and misrepresent what I had to say last Thursday. I at no stage suggested that this is a matter of the Government not taking its responsibilities. I have always taken my responsibilities; I take them fully and absolutely. Every action I took was on the basis of a decision taken rationally at the time based on advices received and my own judgment.

Leaders' Questions. (19 May 2010)

Brian Cowen: In regard to the Deputy's suggestion that the balance of evidence was in favour of taking other proposals, the balance of evidence was along the lines I outlined in my speech. We took account of the IMF, OECD, stockbrokers and other forecasting firms internationally and domestically that were setting out their views. The Department of Finance, as former Ministers for Finance will know, will...

Leaders' Questions. (19 May 2010)

Brian Cowen: I refer Deputies to my budget speeches, all of which also set out the downsides. What is clear is that the Department of Finance took forecasting on the conservative side of the equation, rather than taking the most optimistic forecasts available. It has taken this approach under various Ministers of all political ilk and persuasions. The record will show that is the case. It is all right...

Leaders' Questions. (19 May 2010)

Brian Cowen: -----would have meant a substantial reduction-----

Leaders' Questions. (19 May 2010)

Brian Cowen: Shouting me down does not change the position.

Leaders' Questions. (19 May 2010)

Brian Cowen: The proposal from the Labour Party was to change the basis on which stamp duty was computed. One would not pay the full rate. Instead, one would only pay the higher rates in respect of those parts of the property that were within the higher bands. The position was that one would pay the full amount on a property costing €400,000. The Labour Party brought forward a proposal which would...

Leaders' Questions. (19 May 2010)

Brian Cowen: It would also have increased property prices because more disposable income would have been available for the property price and the State would have taken less in the transaction. Those are the facts of the matter. They speak for themselves.

Social Partnership (19 May 2010)

Brian Cowen: I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together. On 12 March last, along with the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, I met with officers of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. The purpose of this meeting was to explore the potential and appropriate conditions for a renewed...

Social Partnership (19 May 2010)

Brian Cowen: This phrase has been used in other agreements and has been clarified by the facilitators of the agreement when clarification was sought by the public sector trade unions. There is a full understanding on its meaning and content. It is important to point out that if this agreement is ratified, then the Government as an employer will implement the agreement in a bona fide manner. I do not...

Social Partnership (19 May 2010)

Brian Cowen: This agreement sets out the commitments being entered into on both sides, namely, pay commitments by the Government and commitments by employees on the transformation of services.

Social Partnership (19 May 2010)

Brian Cowen: No, that would not be regarded as an unforeseen circumstance.

Social Partnership (19 May 2010)

Brian Cowen: The clarification has been given by the facilitators. It is the expressed intention and expectation of the Government that there will be no further reductions in the remuneration of employees in the public service for the lifetime of this draft agreement, subject to compliance with the terms of draft agreement. Paragraph 1.28 of the draft agreement states that the "implementation of this...

Social Partnership (19 May 2010)

Brian Cowen: I agree that the draft agreement and the clarification provide a basis upon which a consultation is being undertaken by trade unions with their membership. They should be allowed to proceed with that and conclude their arrangements for the organising of ballots and the results that will ensue. I agree that is a wise course of action. I wanted to ensure there had been reasonable...