Tag: credit crunch

Govt needs new approach on all-party ‘co-operation’

26th February 2009

Last night, Fine Gael used their Private Members Time in the Seanad to put forward a motion relating to banking in Ireland. Naturally, the Government side put forward their own amendment. Below is my contribution to the debate. Click here to view Labour’s proposals on the dealing with the banking crisis.

I am glad to have the opportunity to support the Fine Gael motion. I have noticed repeatedly on Private Members’ business and across the board that Senators on the Government side of the House frequently complain about the Opposition’s refusal to be positive and co-operative. Senator Boyle got particularly exercised in this regard this evening in his contribution. Senator Hanafin mentioned this too, but was somewhat less exercised on the issue.

I find it difficult to take the frustration of the Government side seriously because the Fine Gael motion is very reasonable. I cannot see how any reasonable person, including Members on the Government side, can argue with the motion. However, the Government side proposes to delete the Fine Gael motion and substitute its own for it. This goes to the heart of the issue of co-operation and Opposition politics. If Senators Boyle, Hanafin and others are serious about wanting co-operation, why do they wish to delete the Fine Gael motion and replace it with their own?

I can understand that some aspects of the Fine Gael motion might give some pause to the Government side of the House. It might find it difficult to agree to phraseology that calls on the Government to take more decisive action to restore the reputation of the Irish banking system. I understand too it might find it difficult to accept one or two other aspects of the motion, and if I was on that side of the House, I might want to amend or vary those aspects. However, I see no reason for the Government side to strike down the basic thrust of the Fine Gael motion.

The motion recognises that the reckless and incompetent management, regulation and oversight of the domestic Irish banking system has damaged domestic and international confidence, that the Irish economy cannot recover from the deepening economic depression without a functioning banking system that enjoys the trust of depositors and everybody else and the public perception that the resolution of the banking crisis is being manipulated in the interests of powerful and wealthy elites. Perhaps the Government spotted itself in that phrase, but it does not necessarily refer to the Government.

Read More

Time for the Oireachtas to scrutinise the financial mechanisms

1st October 2008

It is completely misleading for anybody to give the impression that the package proposed in the legislation currently before the Dáil does not come at a cost to the State and the Exchequer. The extent to which that was suggested, implied or, I believe, stated by the Taoiseach yesterday was that no money is changing hands. On the face of it, that is true, but it is only half or a very small part of the picture. First, there is the obvious cost associated with a risk, namely, if this guarantee is called upon at some point in the future. The guarantee would not be given or would not count for anything unless there was a prospect or a possibility at least that it would be called upon at some point in the future. That is a cost or at least a contingent cost or liability.

A second cost is that there is a real risk that the ability of the Irish State to borrow and the interest rates that would be charged to the State on foot of those borrowings will be affected by this. There is a real risk that will occur. That takes the matter into the political arena. It was always a political question but it makes it a highly political question for us and a huge issue in terms of the democratic dimension for these Houses because it affects the ability of the State and the Exchequer to expend money on public services, including health. The Minister for Health and Children said yesterday that the likelihood of increases in expenditure on health would be negligible in the coming period. There is a not even a potential but a very real and likely cost to the State.

This brings me back to the point I raised yesterday, which relates to these Houses and the effect or involvement we should have in this regard into the future. We want more detail from the Minister for Finance as to how he will exercise the powers he will take and the extent of the scrutiny that will be brought to bear on the banks, but what about the scrutiny that the Houses of the Oireachtas should be involved in regard to these matters? I mentioned the issue yesterday in regard to the Joint Committee on Finance and Public Service and that perhaps we should consider having a more dedicated committee or facility for the Houses to examine the question of the banks. The Joint Committee on Finance and Public Service dealt with this issue and I took the opportunity last night to check back on the debate on the matter in July.

I suggest that people examine the transcript because on any reading of it, one would not describe what occurred as a debate. It appeared, from what was stated, that there was no problem at all. The representatives of the various banks stated that there were no issues arising, that there few loans at 100% and that there were no concerns. That was the tenor and level of the debate that took place in July.

What happened in the interim? We are aware of what occurred in the United States but what gave rise to the so-called catastrophe into which we were facing? The Houses should be involved in considering what took place during the past three months. The role of the Financial Regulator should be examined. What about the role of the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland? There are already suggestions in the United States that there should be criminal investigations in respect of what occurred on Wall Street. I am not stating that something similar should happen here but there should be a role for the Houses in scrutinising what took place during the past three months that led us to the position that obtained from Monday night into early Tuesday morning.

For the past six to 12 months, people in pubs and restaurants throughout the city have been discussing the possibility of a major bank collapsing. We were informed yesterday that this almost happened. There is a complete disconnect between these Houses, the Members of which are the democratic representatives of the people, and what is happening in the real world.

In that context, I reiterate that we should put in place a mechanism that would allow the Members of both Houses to scrutinise what is happening in the banks, examine the extent to which the new facility being afforded to them will be applied and consider the sensible proposals put forward by Opposition spokespersons in respect of what will be the payback to the taxpayer in light of the real cost that arises on foot of this proposal.

More :: Click here to read the Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Bill 2008

“Irish taxpayer is potentially being turned into a sucker thanks to Lenihan’s ‘succour'”

30th September 2008

In terms of this morning’s news from the Minister for Finance, it is not entirely clear whether we have a decision or a proposal. We were told this morning the justification for the decision is to avert a catastrophe and the word “catastrophe” was used quite liberally. It is a big word, particularly when until recently we were told Irish banks did not have liquidity problems and there were no fundamental difficulties with their position. However, the word “catastrophe” has now been used.

Politicians on all sides have a responsibility to hold back and wait to hear the rationale for the proposal being brought forward and to debate it carefully. However, the public is entitled to have spelled out to it what momentous catastrophe would happen if this decision was not made. We are entitled to be told that and not have to guess at it. We should be told precisely what was likely to happen and the consequences of this decision not being made.

What are those consequences? I do not refer to general issues and suggestions that we should look to what is happening in the United States or that if we do not act the sky may fall in. I want more detail because the Irish people are entitled to be told the precise nature of the so-called catastrophe - that is not my word - which we are seeking to avert. We can then compare the action that is proposed with the consequences of not taking it. I support what has been said by others in regard to the level of scrutiny that is needed of the banks and financial institutions if this proposal is to be adopted.

We are a far cry from the point some months ago when the banks appeared before the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. This is the most momentous economic decision that has been taken in a considerable period of time. Surely an argument can at least be made for the establishment of an Oireachtas committee. Sometimes we are criticised for having too many committees, but if there was ever a need for an Oireachtas committee dedicated to a central economic question, surely it is now. There is a compelling argument for a committee to deal with banks and the banking system so that Members of the Oireachtas can be afforded opportunities on a regular basis to scrutinise the banks, understand precisely what is occurring and raise questions about the history of loose and reckless lending and the issue of executive salaries. Such a committee would also provide a forum through which Irish people can ensure that banks and financial institutions pay for this extraordinary bail-out and what I heard the Minister for Finance describe as “succour”.

I sat in my car and reached for the Kleenex tissues at one point while listening to the Minister. I know it is important not to make light of this issue but he claimed that the measures had to be taken in regard to these six Irish banks because they had nowhere else to go for succour. I had a different kind of “succour” in mind when I heard that phrase from the Minister and it is the Irish taxpayer who is potentially being turned into a sucker in this.