Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Bill 2009 - Committee and Final Stages - 20th January 2009
Senator David Norris:
I agree with the principle of Senator Doherty’s amendment. It seems to me that accountability and truth are needed. It is sometimes difficult, without probing, to find out what is the truth. Although I had made arrangements, at considerable difficulty, to get here this evening, the imposition of the guillotine that was decided on by the House meant that I was not permitted to speak. I got here in time to hear the Minister for Finance say that all the principal representatives of the Department of Finance, the Financial Regulator and the Central Bank have advised him to take this course of action. That was categorically refuted in a substantial article in today’s The Irish Times, which was written by Professor Morgan Kelly, who is a professor of economics in University College Dublin:
At the original crisis meeting on September 29th, Brian Cowen claimed that the blanket guarantee to all six banks was given “on the basis of the advice from those who are competent to so advise the Government”. That does not appear to have been the case.
There is a very serious conflict of evidence between what was written today by a senior academic — a professor of economics who claims to have insider knowledge of this matter — and what we are being told in this House. That is why we need this kind of accountability. Professor Kelly’s article argues that this Bill will expose the Irish taxpayer — the ordinary person on the street — to the possibility of a considerable loss. It suggests that if we decide not to rescue Anglo Irish Bank, but instead put all our efforts into rescuing the two principal banks, we will save the taxpayer money. Professor Kelly points out that in any case, Anglo Irish Bank is financially guaranteed by international insurance institutions that can take the hit. His article claims that the value of the commercial property involved would have reached approximately zero, but so what? Professor Kelly has reached the conclusion that “an Irish government has coolly looked its citizens in the eye and said: “Sorry, but your priorities are not ours“.” Proper accountability is needed for those reasons. Once again, legislation that was presented to the House to deal with a serious matter is being rushed and guillotined. There is no consensus that the Government has taken the correct measures to deal with the issue. The Oireachtas is not being treated with the seriousness it deserves. For those reasons, I am happy to support Senator Doherty’s amendment.
Deputy Martin Mansergh:
I do not propose to accept this amendment. Governments need freedom of action. The issue of decisiveness has been the subject of some discussion recently. The Government needs to be able to take decisions freely. It is accountable to the Oireachtas, but that does not mean all of its decisions have to wait until they have been approved by both Houses. In the autumn, a package that was put together by the outgoing Administration on the other side of the Atlantic was seriously delayed in Congress, which caused serious difficulties. One could go down many different alleyways in reply to Senator Doherty.
I refute the suggestion that this is a partitionist Parliament. Partition was not desired by any party in this Parliament. It was not possible to prevent partition by force. I suspect that all parties in the Dáil, with the exception of Senator Doherty’s party, would reject the idea or imputation that people preferred a 26-county state, rather than a 32-county state. I have been to the Galway Races on two or three occasions. The people at every table at which I sat were interested in horses or involved in the equine industry. Rather than talking about property development, they discussed the prospects of the various horses.
Deputy Martin Mansergh:
I do not think Senator Norris was here for the Minister’s entire contribution. He can correct me if I am wrong. The Minister has taken strong issue with the article in The Irish Times to which Senator Norris referred. In both Houses, he has emphatically made the argument that the nationalisation of Anglo Irish Bank is a systemic issue. He has argued that the bank is not something that can simply be discarded without consequences. When I attended a meeting of the IMF in Washington I heard a senior spokesman for the American treasury admit that what had caused a great deal of the problems was its decision to let Lehman Brothers fail. We have been determined not to make the same mistake.
Senator David Norris:
I agree with every word said by my distinguished colleague on the Labour bench, Senator Kelly. I would like to go a little further. Within the last hour the Minister for Finance, Deputy Lenihan, told the House that the Director of Corporate Enforcement did not have the same powers to inquire into banks that he would have with regard to other institutions. That is rather worrying.
Senator Donie Cassidy:
He did not say——
Senator David Norris:
That is exactly what he said. I heard him. I was in the House. I heard every word.
Senator Donie Cassidy:
It is the regulator. We heard that.
Senator David Norris:
He does not have the same powers.
Senator Donie Cassidy:
No.
Senator David Norris:
We need somebody to go in there who has those powers. It seems to be an extraordinary situation. Reference was made to the position of the chairman whom I have met, and who is a charming man, but a man with an extraordinary attitude towards life. He was able to take out loans that were concealed which varied between €80 million and €100 million. These were neatly swiped off the books every year with the co-operation of other financial institutions. He was in the newspapers shortly after I interviewed him on a radio programme to say he thought that old age pensioners should be means tested for the medical card because the country was living beyond its means. He was certainly living beyond the country’s means.
What happens to the loan advanced by this bank to its own chairman? As we nationalise the bank, we are presumably undertaking responsibility for those loans. Does that mean this gentleman has his €80 million-plus loan secured by the taxpayer? That would be extraordinary, which is why I want the Minister to be aware of this question. It is one in which the taxpayer would be most interested.
The Minister also indicated he was not aware whether any criminality had occurred. Again, that may be part of his judicious approach to the whole issue. On a different Bill in the past year, an amendment was defeated which sought to protect citizens of this State from going to jail for not paying television licences. Yet, somebody can apparently swindle their way to €100 million and there is no question of that person going to jail. The ordinary citizen would be very interested to know whether any criminality is involved in this. If the officials who are principally charged with this area do not have sufficient powers, those powers should be conferred, and perhaps they should be conferred within this Bill, as Senator Kelly has suggested and which would be highly appropriate. This is probably the most significant amendment we are likely to reach today.
I could go on but I know time is limited. There is a guillotine and it would be very unfair of me to expatiate too much at this stage. However, this is a highly important amendment and I will certainly support it.
Senator David Norris:
The Minister of State’s reply is astonishing because he has stated the Director of Corporate Enforcement has perfectly adequate powers. Within the past hour or so the senior Minister informed the House that the Director of Corporate Enforcement did not have sufficient powers.
Deputy Martin Mansergh:
He was talking about his own powers as Minister.
Senator David Norris:
He suggested there was a gap in respect of the question of authority, power and capacity to investigate. At least that is what I understood him to say.
Senator Liam Twomey:
That is correct.
Senator David Norris:
For that reason Members require a clear explanation of what is, on the surface at least, a clear contradiction between what a Minister and his Minister of State have said. The Minister of State has noted that the Minister does not have the power to direct the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement and so on. For these reasons and because of such clear gaps Members need precisely the investigation proposed. One must remember the people are footing the bill. Ordinary people are paying for this casino that paraded itself as a bank. The Minister of State has stated authoritatively but without giving Members substantial supporting evidence that there was no run on the bank. If that is so, why did I hear of it on the radio while abroad? It certainly appears to have been given wide currency internationally that there was a run on the bank. If there was no run on it, what is the precise reason for the nationalisation? Senator Ross also asked this question which is extremely pertinent.
Deputy Martin Mansergh:
I gave the answer to that question.
Senator David Norris:
Not really, or at least the Minister of State did not give an answer that satisfied me. Moreover, I doubt whether it satisfied many other Members because clearly something has changed. I also support Senator Ross in stating proper information is required. If an investigation takes place, it must be made public because such accountability is required. I find it embarrassing to be obliged to agree with my colleague on so many points——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach:
Senator Norris, a number of other Members wish to contribute.
Senator David Norris:
If I may, I will conclude on these two points.
Senator Shane Ross:
It is far worse for me.
Senator David Norris:
To be praised by me. That is the reason I am doing it.
While the matter of commercial sensitivity was raised, it does not apply in this regard because it is just like the position in a libel action in which people have no reputation left. The bank has no credibility and no reputation remains to it. Consequently, it cannot be subject to the ordinary forces of commercial sensitivity. The Minister has stated it is a going concern. While that may be the case, within limited terms of linguistic reference, the question is: where is it going and at what cost?
Senator Ivana Bacik:
I wish to follow on from the Minister of State’s comment that there was no run on the bank. However, in answer to the question as to why the bank should be nationalised, he stated: “Market confidence in the bank was further eroded and this was reflected in a limited weakening of Anglo Irish Bank’s funding base in recent weeks and the increased risk of knock-on effects on its credit ratings.” My understanding of that comment is that there was a run on the bank.
Senator David Norris:
Hear, hear.
Senator Ivana Bacik:
The Minister of State should clarify exactly what the words, “a limited weakening of Anglo Irish Bank’s funding base” mean. Although it is not clear, this is the clearest explanation that has been given as to the reason Members are being asked to nationalise a bank that they were told 25 days ago would not require nationalisation.
Senator Liam Twomey:
I will repeat my question which is the only one I will ask the Minister of State. If this legislation is not passed tonight, will Anglo Irish Bank be insolvent or will it be solvent and free to trade? Does the Government consider that it will survive or are Members proceeding with the Bill because the Government considers it to be insolvent and that it will not survive?
Senator Alan Kelly:
The Taoiseach asked all Members to behave responsibly and that is what they are doing by tabling this amendment.
Senator David Norris:
Hear, hear.
An Cathaoirleach:
As it is now 11 p.m., I am required to put the following the question in accordance with an order of the Seanad of this day: “That in respect of——
Senator Liam Twomey:
On a point of order——
An Cathaoirleach:
I am putting the question.
Senator Frances Fitzgerald:
On a point of order——
Senator Liam Twomey:
On a point of order, we have dealt with only two of the 20 amendments tabled. This is unbelievable.
An Cathaoirleach:
I am putting the question, “That, in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, the section is hereby agreed to in Committee, the Schedule and Title are hereby agreed to in Committee, the Bill is, accordingly, reported to the House without amendment, Fourth Stage is hereby completed, the Bill is hereby received for consideration and the Bill is hereby passed.” Is that agreed?
Senator Jerry Buttimer:
The Green Party is rolling over again for Fianna Fáil.
Senator David Norris:
Without a proper discussion of our amendments, it is impossible to agree——
(Interruptions).
Senator Frances Fitzgerald:
Of the 20 amendments tabled——
Senator David Norris:
Vótáil.
Senator Frances Fitzgerald:
——only two have been discussed. It is an absolute disgrace.
(Interruptions).
Senators:
Vótáil.
An Cathaoirleach:
It was agreed.
Senator Frances Fitzgerald:
It is not agreed. It is disgraceful.
An Cathaoirleach:
Agreed.
Senator Frances Fitzgerald:
There are 20 amendments to the Bill and only two of them have been discussed. It is an outrage.
An Cathaoirleach:
I call on the Leader to move No. 2, earlier signature motion.
Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Bill 2009: Earlier Signature Motion.
Senator Donie Cassidy:
I move:
That pursuant to subsection 2° of section 2 of Article 25 of the Constitution, Seanad Éireann concurs with the Government in a request to the President to sign the Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Bill 2009 on a date which is earlier than the fifth day after the date on which the Bill shall have been presented to her.
An Cathaoirleach:
Is the motion agreed?
Senators:
No.
An Cathaoirleach:
I ask Members to resume their seats. The question is “That the motion be agreed to” and on that question a division has been challenged.
Senator Maurice Cummins:
We called a division on the actual Bill itself on numerous occasions. It came from both sides.
An Cathaoirleach:
Tellers: Tá, Senator Diarmuid Wilson and Senator Camillus Glynn; Níl, Senator Maurice Cummins and Senator Paschal Donohoe.
(Interruptions).
Senator Maurice Cummins:
It is bad enough to be stifling debate in this House rather than displaying this type of an attitude, too, a Chathaorligh.
An Cathaoirleach:
The time allowed for voting is one minute and the time starts now.
Senator Maurice Cummins:
This is absolutely undemocratic.
An Cathaoirleach:
It is not.
Senator Pearse Doherty:
I heard Senator Norris clearly call for a vote. It will take a number of minutes to have a vote on this Bill. All of us on this side of the House want to vote on this Bill, and a vote was called — we can check the transcripts.
An Cathaoirleach:
No vote was called. I did not hear it.
(Interruptions).
Senator Dominic Hannigan:
On a point of order, I suggest we adjourn the House and that a recording is listened to.
An Cathaoirleach:
There is no point of order. The question has been put.
Senator Dominic Hannigan:
The record will clearly show that several Members called for a vote. If we adjourn the House——
An Cathaoirleach:
There is no point of order.
Senator Dominic Hannigan:
——for ten minutes, this can probably be clarified.
Question put.
The Seanad divided by electronic means.
Senator Maurice Cummins:
I would like a manual vote.
Senator Frances Fitzgerald:
We want a walk through vote.
An Cathaoirleach:
The vote will now proceed.
Question again put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 22.
Tá
Boyle, Dan.
Brady, Martin.
Butler, Larry.
Callanan, Peter.
Callely, Ivor.
Cannon, Ciaran.
Carty, John.
Cassidy, Donie.
Corrigan, Maria.
Daly, Mark.
de Búrca, Déirdre.
Ellis, John.
Feeney, Geraldine.
Glynn, Camillus.
Hanafin, John.
Keaveney, Cecilia.
Leyden, Terry.
MacSharry, Marc.
Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
O’Brien, Francis.
O’Donovan, Denis.
O’Malley, Fiona.
O’Sullivan, Ned.
Phelan, Kieran.
Walsh, Jim.
White, Mary M.
Wilson, Diarmuid.
Níl
Bacik, Ivana.
Bradford, Paul.
Burke, Paddy.
Buttimer, Jerry.
Coghlan, Paul.
Cummins, Maurice.
Doherty, Pearse.
Donohoe, Paschal.
Fitzgerald, Frances.
Hannigan, Dominic.
Healy Eames, Fidelma.
Kelly, Alan.
McFadden, Nicky.
Norris, David.
O’Reilly, Joe.
Phelan, John Paul.
Prendergast, Phil.
Quinn, Feargal.
Regan, Eugene.
Ross, Shane.
Ryan, Brendan.
Twomey, Liam.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Camillus Glynn and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Maurice Cummins and Paschal Donohoe.
Question declared carried.
An Cathaoirleach:
When is it proposed to sit again?
Senator David Norris:
I would like to raise what I believe is a point of order.
Senator Donie Cassidy:
At 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 27 January 2009.
An Cathaoirleach:
The House——
Senator David Norris:
I would like to raise what I believe is a point of order.
An Cathaoirleach:
What is the point of order? I cannot hear the Senator.
Senator David Norris:
That is precisely the problem.
An Cathaoirleach:
What is the point of order?
Senator David Norris:
The point of order is this, and I say it with no disrespect and no intention to comment adversely upon your performance as Cathaoirleach, however it seems that the responsibilities of the Chair include ensuring that the debate is audible and that comments can be heard. The minute this row started I very clearly started shouting “Vótáil, vótáil, vótáil”. I have been heard at the back of a 3,000 seater auditorium and I cannot understand——
Senator Nicky McFadden:
So did I.
Senator Frances Fitzgerald:
I also did the same.
An Cathaoirleach:
I am quite clear in my mind as Cathaoirleach, and I want to be fair to everyone, that I did not hear anyone call “vótáil”——
Senator David Norris:
I accept that.
An Cathaoirleach:
——-when I went through that particular section at the end, but when I called the early signature motion, I heard a number of people call “vótáil” on that.
Senator David Norris:
I quite understand that you might have had difficulty hearing it because there was a hubbub and discussion and ruaille buaille going on, but in those circumstances, the House should have been adjourned so that people like myself who very clearly called for a vote on this important Bill could be heard. All my colleagues over here have supported me. They all heard me shouting it.
Senators:
Hear, hear.
An Cathaoirleach:
I have made my decision on that. The business is completed and the House stands adjourned until 2.30 p.m. next Tuesday.
