Adjournment Debate - Pension Provisions - 26th March 2009

Adjournment Debate - Pension Provisions - 26th March 2009
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh. This is a rather appropriate matter for the Minister of State to take because I know he has a distinguished academic career and is sympathetic to the work undertaken by universities.
On 2 February this year, the Government announced a pension levy that would affect all public servants. I am not sure if this was to celebrate the 127th birthday of the great writer James Joyce but its impact on certain aspects of post-doctoral research is very negative. I have been made aware of this by a number of individuals in this area.
This is not entirely unlike a case in respect of which I was successful some years ago. A blind student was awarded a fellowship and grant in order to pursue a PhD in history. A very mean mechanism was engaged in whereby the value of that scholarship was subtracted from the blind person’s pension, thereby making it impossible for the person to continue with his research. I was successful in this case and hope to be so again today.
I understand the levy will be applied to the personal remuneration of all college employees, regardless of contract or grade, from 1 March. The Government’s argument was that this would compensate them for the alleged advantage of public sector workers in terms of security of employment and pension benefits.
A number of points need to be made regarding the anomalies affecting researchers. Researchers do not enjoy any of the benefits enjoyed by public sector workers, nor do they receive any overtime pay, despite the fact that a great deal of their work is done at night, after normal hours and at weekends. Most researchers are on fixed-term contracts with no guarantee of renewal. There are no defined pay scales and salaries are at the discretion of their supervisor rather than the college or Government. In other words, the instability of employment typically prevents them from enjoying the benefits of pension contributions over the longer term.
I remember very well when the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Bill 2009 went through the House - it was very recently. There is a clause in section 8 of that legislation that permits the Minister to exempt a group or class of employees on the basis of specific conditions of employment that distinguish them from other classes or groups of public servants. I have and will continue to establish the fact that the individuals to whom I refer comprise a distinct group upon whom a clear injustice will be perpetrated.
Until recently contract researchers were not allowed access to their own pension records associated with their employers’ pension schemes despite the provisions of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003. As a result of their not having such access or making certain payments, many are now being required to back-pay employee payments for the period during which they were denied access. They did not have information on what they were supposed to pay, yet, when they eventually received it, they were required to back-pay. In other words, they are paying pension contributions on the double and now have further difficulties because of the new pension levy.
Researchers whose programmes are funded by industry or the European Union make full economic contributions for their pensions. The employer contributes at the rate of 20% while the employee contributes at the rate of 6.5%. The Government is not contributing to the pensions but is taking money from them.
In addition to this, most research projects are of limited duration. As a result the researchers will never be in a position to accumulate the years of service necessary to take proper advantage of the pension scheme. I will give an example of someone who was in touch with me who is the recipient of a Health Research Board, HRB, post-doctoral research fellowship. The main point of the fellowship is to provide support for outstanding post-doctoral researchers who wish to consolidate their research skills and make the transition from post-doctoral research training to independent researcher. To receive this type of prestigious award the proposed research project must clearly demonstrate the potential to have an impact on the health service, the needs of patients, health practitioners and the public.
The particular proposal I am discussing was peer reviewed at two different stages by highly qualified and respected peers of international and domestic origin. Each year the Health Research Board awards six to eight fellowships to proposals of merit to individuals in various research institutions throughout Ireland. This is exactly the type of work we want done in universities and the type of intellectual investment we want to attract from outside the State. We are acting to inhibit it by the imposition of financial strictures upon these people.
On top of this is a serious anomaly. People who do this research work in Trinity or other national universities such as the constituent colleges of the NUI are subject to the levy. However, this does not affect people in the Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland who receive exactly the same post-doctoral fellowships, have gone through the same peer review process and have demonstrated the potential to have an impact on the needs of patients and all of the other qualifications. They are not subject to it. Here is a classic contradiction. One group of workers is included in this penal scheme and another receives exactly the same remuneration, grants, awards and fellowships but is exempt simply by virtue of the fact that they are involved in another institution. This is clearly absurd.
I ask the Minister of State to use the facilities he has under section 8 of the quoted Act to review the situation positively. The vast majority of researchers are paid by various funding authorities and they administer the grant money based on peer review recommendations. Who gets funded for scientific research is not and never will be voted upon by the Oireachtas. Essentially, this Bill imposes a special tax on researchers who work in certain institutions but not in others. This appears to be unjustified and unsustainable.
In the interests of the development of intellectual resources and research which is not pure academic research, although there are aspects of this involved, but which will be of benefit to the country, patients and the health services, as is clearly demonstrated, and which involve small amounts of money, I ask the Minister of State to take action to protect this valuable intellectual resource and not to subject people engaged in this to a penny-pinching exercise.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Martin Mansergh): I fully subscribe to what Senator Norris stated on the importance of research. As it happens I am very familiar with the situation he describes as I have a daughter who is a research fellow at Trinity and is, of course, subject to the pension levy. However, I have not had representations on the pension levy from that source.
The Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009 is one of a range of measures which have been implemented recently to address the current economic crisis, focusing in particular on the serious imbalance in the public finances. The grave Exchequer position, which we spent most of the day discussing, demands that exceptional and unpopular initiatives be brought forward in the national interest, and the Government has not been found wanting in acting accordingly. It is against this background that the new public service pension related deduction was included in the Act, which was recently debated and passed in this House.
Public servants enjoy significantly better pensions than most private sector workers. Public service pension benefits are higher and considered to be more secure than those of pensionable private sector workers, and their superiority has been highlighted by the severe losses in value sustained recently by pension funds generally.
I accept that the pension related deduction is a significant imposition and that in many cases it has not been a popular development for public servants and their families. The Government, however, is firmly of the view that it is a justifiable and proportionate measure at a time of great upheaval in the economy. Secure pensions are a very valuable asset in the current economic climate. The deduction asks that public servants, who enjoy pension security or who have an analogous arrangement, make a fair and reasonable contribution in recognition of this fact and help play their part in addressing both our immediate difficulties and the longer-term sustainability challenges facing the public service pensions.
Senator Norris expressed concern about the impact of the Act on the position of university research workers, in particular those in receipt, for example, of funds under the Health Research Board post-doctoral research fellowship scheme. In this connection the scope of the Act is clear in terms of the categories of person to whom the deduction applies. Section 2(1) of the Act provides that the deduction is to be made from public servants or persons who are members of a public service pension scheme, who are entitled to a benefit under such a scheme, or who have an entitlement to a payment in lieu of membership in such a scheme.
I am advised that in Trinity College Dublin, research workers, including research fellows are, as a condition of their appointment, enrolled as members of the college’s defined benefit pension scheme and so are liable to the deduction under the Act. In accordance with the provisions of the Act and Department of Finance guidance notes, the view of the Trinity College authorities is that the pension related deduction is being correctly applied at source, that is to say it applies to any employee, temporary or permanent, who is a member of any college pension scheme or, where they are not a member of a college pension scheme for whatever reason, has confirmed on inquiry that they are otherwise in receipt of a benefit under another public service pension scheme or receive an additional payment in lieu of membership of such a scheme. On this basis I can confirm that the college is operating correctly within the terms of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 and the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009.
More generally, a key point concerning funded research workers in our universities is that Ireland has moved to make them pensionable over recent times and has thus significantly improved the attractiveness of a research career in line with our national strategy. The value of this improvement in terms and conditions is a multiple of the cost of the employee pension contribution. It is also important to note that the nature or source of funding for university posts is not relevant in the application of the deduction. If the individual meets the criteria set out in section 2 of the Act, then the deduction applies.
The deduction is linked to the entitlement of an individual to a public service pension benefit or payment in lieu but I would point out that section 6 of the Act provides for a refund of the deduction in certain limited circumstances. Such a refund will arise in cases where, on leaving a public service job, an employee has no accrued benefit under any public service pension scheme, has not received a payment in lieu of pension scheme membership and has not transferred the service to another public service pension scheme.
Section 8 of the Act also provides for exemption from the deduction in exceptional circumstances when approved by the Minister for Finance. Specifically, where the Minister is satisfied that there is a particular class or group of public servants who, by reason of exceptional circumstances because of some particular aspect or condition of their employment which, in the Minister’s opinion, materially distinguish them from other classes or groups of public servants to which section 2 applies, there is provision under section 8 of the Act for an exemption in whole or in part from deductions or to modify the obligation under section 2 of the Act in such a manner as the Minister for Finance sees fit, if the Minister considers it to be just and equitable in all the circumstances to do so.
It provides that this is for a class or group. The procedure to be followed is that the application be made by that class or group by stating the case in writing to the person who authorises the payment of remuneration to the class or group concerned. The application will be considered by the parent Department and the HEA in the case of bodies in the higher education area and following this consideration, the case will be submitted to the Minister for Finance for a final decision. It would be for a group of persons affected to make the application in writing.
It is also the case that college students or scholars on postgraduate studentship who receive a stipend are not entered into a college pension scheme. Scholarships consisting of a stipend of €16,000 and a fee grant of €8,000, by agreement with the Revenue Commissioners, are treated the same way and so are not subject to tax or PRSI. Scholarships are not considered to be remuneration under the 2009 Act, and those recipients are not members of the pension scheme so they are not subject to the deduction. The distinction must be made between research workers and people who are doing postgraduate research as the levy does not apply to the latter.

Senator David Norris: I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I am very grateful to him for amplifying beyond the direct typescript as his additional points were particularly helpful. The people who have been in touch with me accept that the country is facing very difficult economic circumstances, but they make the point that they are not public servants in the ordinary sense due to the vulnerability of their jobs, the method of funding and so on.
The Minister of State is right that the college in question is operating correctly. The question is not whether it is operating correctly, but whether it is operating fairly. There is a margin for appreciation. I am not sure how these people can legally constitute themselves as a group, but perhaps they can get in touch. They have a research fellows common room and so on, and they probably have a committee. Perhaps if this committee wrote to the Minister to seek a meeting with him, that could be undertaken.

Deputy Martin Mansergh: That is nearly accurate, but not completely accurate. There is nothing to say that people cannot constitute themselves into an ad hoc group. They must write in the first instance to the people who pay them. The people who administer their pay must then refer to the higher authority, such as the Department and the HEA. When they have made a recommendation on it, it can be submitted to the Minister. They do not go directly to the Minister as it is a multiple stage process.
Research workers in publicly funded third level institutions are part of the broadly defined public sector. Conditions for scientific research in our universities have vastly improved over the past ten years. We now have career research workers in these institutions, as opposed to lecturers, professors and so on. That is part of the broad context which we have considered. The Senator might have noticed from my reply that anybody who is there for a relatively short period and who will never be able to benefit from a pension can be reimbursed.

Senator David Norris: I thank the Minister of State for his further elucidation. There are degrees of research workers. Post-doctoral research fellows engaged in particular projects represent a slightly different category. I hope that there may be a positive outcome to this and perhaps the Minister of State’s daughter may benefit.

Order of Business - 26th March 2009

Order of Business - 26th March 2009
Senator David Norris: I share the views of Senators Fitzgerald and O’Toole with regard to the satirical portrait of the Taoiseach. There may be a slight sting attached to it, but the Taoiseach is a man of strong satirical humour. I am very glad he was not consulted about the reporting of this matter to the Garda. There is a very long tradition of political satire. One need only think of Rowlinson, Gillray and Hogarth. The Prince Regent was subject to considerably worse than anything suggested by the portrait of the Taoiseach. I compliment Anne Doyle for keeping a straight face, although there was a twinkle in her eye. The news item gave the people some degree of amusement without causing any great harm. The lack of proportion shown in reporting it to the Garda and the charges - incitement to hatred, indecency and criminal damage for the hammering of one nail into a wall - make the situation farcical.
There are occasions when people are properly outraged. It would have been far better to concentrate on the planned crucifixion as entertainment in a Wexford night club, where somebody representing the figure of Jesus Christ is to be nailed to a cross and whipped by dancers. The owner of the club has said it will be done in a fun and light-hearted way. He said that many young people forget what Easter is about and that this will bring it to their attention. That is preposterous, hypocritical rubbish.

An Cathaoirleach: Talk to the Leader and see what he can do.
agree with Senator O’Toole on Mr. McCaughey’s resignation. Large numbers of legal and accounting firms in this country specialise in advising people under the law to do what he did. If a businessman or woman hands over their affairs for advice, they are entitled to take that advice. It was extraordinarily disingenuous of Pat Kenny yesterday, when discussing this with a serious politician, to ask-----

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should not name people who are not here to defend themselves

Senator David Norris: -----why this had not been addressed in legislation. When told it had been addressed, he said he knew that. If he knew it, why did he ask the idiotic question to which he already knew the answer?
Will the Leader raise again the issue of line rental for telephone services. Our charges are the highest in Europe - I have raised this matter repeatedly. We nationalised ground rents and abolished them in the name of the Republic so why can we not abolish line rentals? Eircom is a company which was asset stripped, picked dry as a herring bone and tossed back into the marketplace by one of our leading capitalists, and now people are demanding the renationalisation, at public expense, of this facility. Charges here are 66% above the average for line rental and, under the guise of capitalism, there has been no investment in broadband whatever.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has made his point.

Private Members Motion on Telecommunications Services Industry - 25th March 2009

Private Members Motion on Telecommunications Services Industry - 25th March 2009
Senator David Norris: I am most grateful to Senator Ó Domhnaill for so graciously allowing me to speak because otherwise I would not get a chance to contribute to this debate at all. A minute should be more than sufficient time.
As I understand it there are two principal problems. The first is geographic spread and the second is speed. I do not think they have been completely addressed by the Government despite its best efforts but it is making progress. The significant difficulty is the reliance on mobile broadband. As far as I can understand it, internationally this is regarded as satisfactory as a back-up service but not as the principal service because it does not have the adequate speed or capacity. That is a significant problem.
The Government’s motion is bland in the extreme and almost invites the kind of negative response which it got. What a pity. We should all be pushing together because this is so necessary in terms of attracting international business. If the unnecessarily negative elements of condemnation had been removed from the amendment on this side of the House then I think we could have rolled the amendment and motion together in a satisfactory way and we could have all got behind the Government.
The Minister referred to telecommunications. That is the one aspect that is missing from the whole argument. I note that when a debate took place on legislation introduced by this side of the House in Private Members’ time, no one but me mentioned the background. The seeds of this problem were sowed in the privatisation of Eircom-----

Senator Martin Brady: Correct.

Senator David Norris: -----which was then raided by Tony O’Reilly. It was a smash and grab raid and then there was asset stripping and absolutely no investment in broadband. That is where the whole problem originates. If this side of the House wants to condemn the Government and State institutions for their lack of investment and lack of progress, why does it not condemn equally private business for what it did in holding this country back? It is important that the record of this House should show that at least one Member of this House understands that vital point.
I support the Government and would encourage it in every way I can to complete the programme of establishing broadband throughout the country, bearing in mind those two critical factors I mentioned, namely, geographical spread and megabyte speed. Mobile broadband is not going to solve the problem. It may be a makeshift answer for the time being but it is not sufficiently sophisticated or complex to attract international investment into this country, which is what we need.

Senator Michael McCarthy: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Power. I look forward to debating this issue. It is important we debat

Order of Business - 25th March 2009

Order of Business - 25th March 2009
Senator David Norris: I find myself in the highly unusual position of disagreeing with my distinguished colleague Senator Joe O’Toole on virtually everything he said. I disagree first on the issue of fees. I have always objected to the phrase “free fees”. It is an ugly phrase and a complete oxymoron. It is nonsense and means nothing. There is no such thing as free fees because someone somewhere is paying. It is inappropriate that the poorest in society, old age pensioners and so on, should have some of their tax money distrained to pay for fees. That is wrong. I have said this to the student leaders and said it publicly in Trinity College. I know saying this will not get votes for me, but I believe in telling what I see to be the truth even though people may not like what I say.
The real battle is elsewhere. It is taking place as we speak between the Department of Finance and the Department of Education and Science. We should be fighting to ensure that moneys brought in by a change in the regime will be ringfenced for third level education. It must not go into the general Exchequer.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Hear, hear.

Senator David Norris: This must be our fight if we really value education. Another battle to be fought is that for an appropriate means test. We must not disadvantage anybody. It would be shameful to take money from the poor to educate the rich. I know that argument does not appeal to Senator O’Toole, but I feel strongly about it. I have spoken to my friends on the left who have talked about changing the tax regime. That is all right in a utopian world, but in advance of a change in the tax regime, it is nothing other than ideologically driven rubbish to suggest this country can afford not to look after the most vulnerable.
I half disagree with Senator O’Toole on the issue of the inclusion of this House in the general discussions on the economy and the disproportionate weight given to social partnership. He is quite wrong about equality not being discussed here but being discussed in that forum. It is the other way round. I watched in horror as the trade unions stood idly by on the margins as the Equality Authority, Combat Poverty and other agencies were destroyed and obliterated by the Government in this House. I used my Private Members’ time to discuss the issue, but nobody paid any attention, including the media which was issued with my speech and those of others taking part in the debate. The debate took place here, but it was not covered. The trade unions should be ashamed of themselves for not standing up and fighting on that issue.

An Cathaoirleach: Has the Senator a question for the Leader?

Senator David Norris: I am about to put a question through the Chair to the Leader. On television on Friday he stated he facilitates and responds to every single question in this House. That is not accurate and I ask him to reflect upon it. I understand opposition from the Leader has placed the Cathaoirleach in the embarrassing position of having to say continually he must hear contributions from Members that were not allowed on the preceding day. There is a backlog and it is a nonsense and farce. Will the Leader state when the Committee on Procedure and Privileges will meet? I ask him not to oppose, on this occasion, the extension of the Order of Business so Members can be facilitated.

Senator Joe O’Toole: Hear, hear.

Order of Business - 24th March 2009

Order of Business - 24th March 2009
Senator David Norris: I welcome the presence of Mr. John Drennan in the Press Gallery on what I think is his third visit in a long, distinguished and somewhat acerbic career as a political analyst ——

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Hear, hear.

An Cathaoirleach: It is not appropriate to the Order of Business to welcome anybody to the Press Gallery.

Senator David Norris: I hope his newspaper group will show a sustained interest in this House from now on.

An Cathaoirleach: Has the Senator a question appropriate to the Leader?

Senator David Norris: On the issue of the proposed strike, I am glad to be a member of three trade unions, IFUT, the NUJ and Equity and support the trade union movement. However, on each occasion I have voted against this strike. Senator O’Toole may well be correct that the trade unions are angry, but an angry response is not necessarily a rational one. I have heard of people cutting off their noses to spite their faces, but in this case they are cutting off their faces to spite their noses. The proposed strike is excessive action.
I also criticise employers because it is clear unions are being provoked by employers who are making use of the difficult financial situation to cut back and not pay legitimate wages. People are also provoked by the behaviour of people like Mr. Fingleton. I understood Irish Nationwide was a mutual society, but if that is the case, Mr. Fingleton’s idea of mutuality and mine are quite opposed. I understand the €28 million pot was described as a group insurance scheme. His definition of “group” is also unusual, because it appears to be confined entirely to himself. This is very provocative when so many people are losing jobs.
A number of property speculators who have driven this country into the mess we are in have indicated publicly they are not in a position to pay their debts or even the interest on their borrowings. Meanwhile, a 37 year old single mother of two was jailed last week for a month for non-payment of €5,800 to one of the financial institutions. Where is the equity in that? Is it any wonder people are angered? I share the anger of the trade unions, but I try to hold on to my rational intellect. The picture of Ireland this strike will project outside the country is disastrous.
On sport, does the Leader agree that the qualities displayed by the Irish rugby team in its extraordinary and historic victory were ones that could be taken on board by Government? I mean perseverance, fortitude, refusal to panic in awkward and difficult circumstances——
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Hear, hear.

Senator David Norris: —— and ability to keep the pressure on consistently according to plan until it achieved victory in a difficult situation. These are the kind of qualities the Government needs. Consider too how the team united the country. There was not much political verbiage. I saw the team coming back at the airport and saw Ulstermen there delighted to see the tricolour. Ulster voices intimated they were thrilled with the Dublin crowd. Such sports victories, and the rugby victory was not the only victory, does more to lift spirits than anything. Not only was there the rugby victory, there was also the victory of Bernard Dunne who behaved with equal decency and sportsmanship——

An Cathaoirleach: Has the Senator a question on the Order of Business?

Senator David Norris: Let us not forget either the victory of Katie Taylor, another world champion and a woman. That was a day of which we could all be very proud.

An Cathaoirleach: I recognise that.

Adjournment Debate on Health Services - 12th March 2009

Adjournment Debate on Health Services - 12th March 2009.
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State to the House, particularly because we have a good Laois man in charge of this debate.

Senator Eugene Regan: The Senator is winning already.

Senator David Norris: It refers to the question of the provision of treatment facilities and services for the children in our community. In referring to our community, I mean the national rather than Dublin community. In the old days there were at least three principal centres for such matters, the Temple Street Hospital on the north side of the city, Crumlin in the west and the National Children’s Hospital on Harcourt Street for those in the south. I remember that very well because I went to school quite close to it and people with broken legs were referred up there.
There was a series of reorganisation procedures and as part of that, the National Children’s Hospital was incorporated into the hospital in Tallaght, although with certain substantial undertakings. Its identity was to be retained and the provision of facilities was to be funded. This has not happened. The brief given to the consultants was too restrictive and their hands were tied.
There is the question of access when all these services are concentrated in one area. I have been a great proponent of the metro and I noted the Minister speaking about the proposed service in my neighbourhood near the Mater Hospital. We hope the metro will run past that location, although there is a question mark over this because of financial constraints, but in any case people with sick children may not find it an appropriate method of transport. That should be borne in mind.
I have had a series of meetings with people representing the hospital in Tallaght. These were not the elite consultants and so on, although they would be supportive. They included the nursing staff, parents and technical staff. These people came here to meet with myself and Senator Déirdre de Búrca, who was also very much on side.
There is a certain degree of flexibility provided for at this stage with regard to the closure of the paediatric accident and emergency department at Tallaght Hospital, although this would remove a very important facility. This plan will result in the closure of all overnight beds in Tallaght and only day case beds will be present on site to deal with minor surgical cases. Once the reconfiguration of paediatric hospitals is complete, the urgent care centre will deal with minor scrapes, bumps, bruises, coughs and minor illnesses. All seriously ill children will face being transported across an increasingly congested city centre, involving delay and anxiety. In addition, people may come to the accident and emergency department and hang around to go through the initial stages before being told to go across to the other facility to start the process again. That is unsatisfactory.
These observations are highlighted in two documents, the RKW planning report and the statutory instrument that established the development board. In the planning report published in 2007, RKW indicated it was unable to consider the option of having two fully functional facilities - one on the north side and the other on the south side - to cater for the range of possibilities. That was recommended by the Irish Association of Emergency Medicine. The reason it could not consider the matter is because it was outside its remit. The consultants who prepared this report state that the concept of legitimate variation must be explored during the final planning stages.
The second document on which I am relying is SI 246 of May 2007, which established the development board for the new paediatric hospital at the Mater. Under section 5, it states with regard to board functions:

(a) to plan, design, build, furnish and equip a national paediatric hospital (“the hospital”) in accordance with a brief approved by the Executive with the prior consent of the Minister, and subject to any subsequent variations to this brief as may be determined by the Executive in consultation with the Board, and with the prior consent of the Minister;
The important term is “subject to any subsequent variations to this brief as may be determined by the Executive in consultation with the Board, and with the prior consent of the Minister”.
Although there is general support for the concept of a centre of excellence to deal with tertiary care for sick children, it should be noted that 18% of all hospital care comes under this category, leaving an overwhelming preponderance of sick children requiring easy and rapid access to secondary and tertiary care. One could argue that a large proportion of tertiary care in any case could be classified as elective, chosen or planned events. For example, there are specialised services, oncology and the diagnosis of serious illness. Some admissions will be emergency admissions but many accident and emergency admissions would come under a non-tertiary scenario.
Approximately 80% of the children in both Temple Street and the National Children’s Hospital are admitted via the accident and emergency department, with the length of stay in the National Children’s Hospital being 2.9 days. Emergency admissions are by their nature those which require speedy access to medical attention.
The Irish Association of Emergency Medicine has expressed serious concerns about the plan as formulated at the moment. For example, it has put the view forward that two fully functioning accident and emergency departments, with the back-up of overnight beds, would provide the “safest care” for sick children, which is a very important phrase. It has also indicated that urgent care centres as envisaged cannot replace the requirement for comprehensive emergency department care. That is a very serious case to be made.
A number of points and difficulties have been raised and it would be very helpful if the Minister could indicate that the flexibility that exists could be employed in the interests of the children of our country.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy John Moloney): Unfortunately, the Minister cannot attend this afternoon and she has instead asked me to take this Adjournment matter on her behalf. The development of the National Paediatric Hospital is a priority project for the Government and the project is proceeding as planned. The Children’s Health First report commissioned by the Health Service Executive indicated that the population and projected demands in this country can support only one world class tertiary paediatric hospital. It recommended that the hospital should be in Dublin and should, ideally, be located with a leading adult academic hospital in order to optimise the outcomes for children. Following detailed consideration, it was decided the most appropriate location for the new National Paediatric Hospital is at the Mater Hospital.
The development is being overseen by the National Paediatric Hospital development board, which was established in May 2007. The board has 12 members appointed by the Minister as follows: a chairperson appointed directly by the Minister, three members appointed on the nomination of the chairperson, three members appointed to represent the interests of the general public, two members appointed on the nomination of the HSE and one member each appointed on the nominations of the Children’s University Hospital, Temple Street, the National Children’s Hospital, Tallaght and the Faculty of Paediatrics, Royal College of Physicians of Ireland. There is currently one vacancy on the board to be filled on the nomination of Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital, Crumlin.
The board has appointed a number of key personnel, including a chief officer, a medical director and a finance officer. A detailed design brief for the new hospital is due for completion during the second quarter of 2009. The design brief will be converted into an exemplar design, outlining the exact dimensions and specifications for the new hospital to allow the project proceed to tender for construction. A more accurate estimate of costs will be available at that stage. The project is scheduled for completion in 2014. The HSE has advised that €5.3 million has been expended on the project to date and the Minister looks forward to continuing progress on this important development.

Senator David Norris: I thank the Minister of State for his reply and ask a few questions. He pointed out that the Children’s Health First report recommended one centre of excellence but that does not answer the question about two upgraded accident and emergency units. This is recommended by the leading authority on the subject in the interest of what it describes as the safety of children. That is an important point.
My second point is that flexibility is provided by two documents such that the project can be changed in that minor way. I am no longer challenging the location of the hospital, although there are grave questions marks over it, but that matter is now history.
The Minister of State indicated there is one vacancy on the board.

Deputy John Moloney: There is.

Senator David Norris: It is a significant vacancy. It is one to be filled on the nomination of Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital, Crumlin, which has these exact reservations among others. That is a real problem.
I note the list of board members contains some distinguished people, including some friends of mine such as Harry Crosbie, who is a remarkable man. The sum of money the Minister of State indicates is being spent, that of €5.3 million, is considerable. An article appeared which indicated that €28.5 million had been approved for Project Management Limited - Beechams Solicitors to provide business services. That is a great deal of money.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has made his point.

Senator Michael McCarthy: It is a long point.

An Cathaoirleach: 2057Senator Norris has made his point well.

Senator David Norris: There is flexibility in this regard and we need to examine it.

An Cathaoirleach: That is a long-winded question.

Senator Michael McCarthy: It is.

Senator David Norris: I would like the Minister of State to convey the points I have made to the Minister.

Deputy John Moloney: I certainly will. On a point of clarification, the debate on this project has moved on and settlement has been reached on the location. I welcome the fact that the Senator also accepts that point.
I am not sure as to the reason the board vacancy to be nominated by Our Lady’s Children Hospital, Crumlin has not been filled. That information is not available to me. It has not been indicated that the hospital will not fill it. Apparently, it will fill it but the nomination has not yet been submitted.
Regarding the Senator’s concerns about there being two accident and emergency departments, that is a matter for the board, which has now been put in place. I am not sure what the final decision on that will be as that matter has not been concluded. I will ask the Minister to correspond directly with the Senator on that specific point.

Senator David Norris: I thank the Minister of State for that.

Order of Business - 12th March 2009

Order of Business - 12th March 2009
Senator David Norris: I ask for a debate on the Corrib gas field. I do so in light of my considerable concern at the jailing of Ms Maura Harrington and the process which led to it. A former Minister of the Government gave this field away for nothing. The Minister concerned was subsequently jailed in the wake of a corruption scandal. He gave it away to Shell, one of the worst polluters and one of the most avid multinationals. It has been involved in incidents of pollution and was deeply implicated in the judicial murder of Mr. Ken Saro-Wiwa. It literally got away with murder in Kenya and there have been explosions in many other places where it has oil terminals.
I am concerned about this and would be very sorry if, after the Garda having been enlisted on behalf of a multinational, the courts system would begin to play a role in this matter. Judges are above criticism, apparently, and we cannot even ask questions about their remuneration. They are immune from cuts. I am concerned when judges feel free to comment widely on the personality traits of somebody they are sentencing, that having witnessed the behaviour of the person involved_

Senator Joe O’Toole: She assaulted a garda.

Senator David Norris: She does not believe in her idealism because she witnessed her enjoyment of the public limelight. I wonder about the qualifications _this is not a judicial matter. She then referred Ms. Harrington for psychiatric examination in addition to jailing her for 28 days. Are we returning to eastern Europe? Is it an attempt to use psychiatry to control political expression? This is terribly dangerous territory. She slapped a garda in the face.

An Cathaoirleach: Questions to the Leader.

Senator David Norris: I had my face slapped and the person did not go to jail for 28 days. I am asking for a debate so we can ventilate all these matters.
I congratulate the Green Party. At their conference the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley said he is attempting to ensure Ireland withdraws from the European Defence Agency. I ask for a debate on this matter. I have always supported Ireland’s increasing involvement, through treaties, in the European Union. However, I campaigned against the Lisbon treaty because I failed to get any answer on the important matter of enmeshing Ireland in the international munitions for export trade. Please give me the opportunity this time to campaign in favour of the Lisbon treaty.
I also congratulate the Green Party on its announcement that television licence spongers will no longer go to jail. It was a frightful, stupid mistake. I tabled an amendment on this matter and it was ruled out of order because it might create a charge on the Exchequer.
I support Senator White and others who called for a debate on the university situation. This is a matter which should be properly discussed here. Many people have an interest in this matter, including some representatives of the graduates of the various universities, but it also highlights the fact that the Seanad would be immensely strengthened if the franchise were extended and we had representatives of the Dublin Institute of Technology and the University of Limerick in the House.
We have two universities in the top 200 in the world. We should be very glad of that. Co-operation between universities on research projects and intellectual mergers could be a good thing. I fought against the coercive merger 30 years ago of UCD and Trinity. We have all learned since then. If they can co-operate on research projects and pool their intellectual resources, why not do so? However, we need to know more about it and I support the call for such a debate.

Private Members Motion on Seanad Reform - 11th March 2009

Private Members Motion on Seanad Reform - 11th March 2009
Senator David Norris: I thank Senator Coffey for sharing time with me and I welcome the Minister to the House. It is very appropriate he should be here as he was chair of the committee and I sat at the first meeting. I do not agree with my colleague, Senator O’Toole, as I do not think anything very much will be done. The Minister will recollect that the first item on the agenda, this scoping nonsense, was an attack on university seats. The Minister was open about that and he changed it slightly. This is always what happens and it is complete and utter rubbish. Nobody in this House actually believes it. Perhaps it will happen, but it will not happen because people here believe it, because nobody does and that is what they will say privately.
I will not vote for this motion because of the inclusion of the councillors. This is what makes it a rotten borough really. It is highly dangerous and is totally undemocratic. That does not mean that I do not hold my colleagues in high regard as I hold them in very high regard just as in the same way I support population control. I do not think anybody should have more than two children but as for my friends who have five children, they cannot be wished away. I do not wish these people away but I wish to God they had never been procreated and the method by which they were procreated is obscene in the extreme.
All sides of this House put forward the idea and it was beginning to be implemented. A special committee of Seanad Éireann was set up to look into the situation of the renditions at Shannon Airport. This was scuppered because local councillors down in County Clare put the squeeze on the Government parties and the committee was abolished. This shows a distortion of the power through local parish pump politics and that is the main reason I object to the motion.
The only thing good about the university seats is the method of election. We are the only democratic bit in the whole bloody place. There is an electorate of 50,000 in our constituency and 100,000 or so in Senator O’Toole’s constituency. We all refer to these things as ours; it is a constituency in which I stand. We have real constituencies. I do not think it is a good idea to multiply the numbers by one thousand in order to give the public the impression that there is some kind of democracy here. Unlike Senator O’Toole, I would be in favour of giving more power to Seanad Éireann. Why not? It is absolute nonsense that we are spancilled like babies and we are not allowed to spend money. Why not? How many times have we put down proposals here in this House and we have been ruled out of order because it would create a charge on the Exchequer. That is absolute insulting nonsense.

Acting Chairman: The Senator has run out of time.

Senator David Norris: With the way in which Governments have run the finances for years, we could not be any worse at the very least. I think we should certainly look at this idea.
I am not taking any lessons about democracy from either side of this House. I have sat in this House when every single one of the named officers of this House had been rejected at least once, and several of them twice, by the electorate and then they were popped back in by the Taoiseach. I do not think anybody in that situation is in a position to give lectures on democracy. Whatever its faults, whatever its difficulties, Seanad Éireann does a good job in revising legislation and that is what we are here for. We have found flaws in legislation and we have introduced and amended legislation. Ideas have been canvassed in this House of which the other House was notoriously shy.
We have good debates, and we should have them more often, about, for example, the North of Ireland. I thought it was a mistake in the old days when we were told we could not speak about the North for danger of inflaming the situation; it was already inflamed. I would like the opportunity to take on ideas such as those expressed by Senator Harris who accused the rest of us of posturing. Aithníonn ciaróg ciaróg eile is my answer to that. He is a very good posturer, a very powerful posturer, and his physical posture tells one a lot as does the wonderful expression in his voice, but the ideas were dangerous in the extreme. He talked about introducing internment. I would have liked an opportunity to reply and say that is the wrong way to go. Despite the accusations of posturing, I am very glad we had the opportunity in this House to express the grief of this country at the shocking events and the abhorrence that so many people on both sides of the community, on both sides of the Border, felt about that.
Mary Robinson was an old friend and colleague of mine, and still is, I think. As President of Ireland, she was not able to interfere directly in politics but she was able to express in gracious, clever and subtle ways what the Irish people were feeling and, in giving that expression, she really did a service to the people of Ireland. In addition to what else we can do, we can give that kind of service.
I will not be supporting or voting for the motion for the reason I have stated, neither will I be voting for the Government amendment because it is a laugh.

Acting Chairman: The Senator is on a very long two minutes at this stage.

Senator David Norris: The amendment refers to a scoping review, into another committee for a look at it and we will circulate a report. I would be very surprised.
The Irish people will want the abolition of the Seanad. Pat Kenny thought he had got an interesting result on the radio today. If he had asked, “Do you want Dáil Éireann to be abolished?”, there would have been a 100% chorus saying, “Get rid of them”.

Order of Business - 11th March 2009

Order of Business - 11th March 2009
Senator Donie Cassidy: I join colleagues in welcoming yesterday’s announcement of the creation of 500 jobs at Hewlett Packard, as well as the investment of an additional €1 billion by Intel. I intend henceforth to begin my reply to the Order of Business by focusing on positive news, so that the staff of “Oireachtas Report” will be able to offer a balanced broadcast to the people, featuring the good news as well as the bad. I wholeheartedly welcome this very good news, especially for people on the east coast and for young students and apprentices.
On behalf of the House, I call on the Minister for Education and Science to give serious consideration to increasing, as a matter of urgency, the marks awarded to leaving certificate students for mathematics and science by 50%. It is in these areas that jobs will be created in the future.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Is the Leader seriously proposing an additional 50% for mathematics and science?

Senator David Norris: Will the Leader repeat that?

Senator Donie Cassidy: Yes, I propose an additional 50% for mathematics and science.

Senator David Norris: Surely students should deserve the mark they are awarded.

An Cathaoirleach: The Leader should be allowed to speak without interruption.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: There is nothing to support the Leader’s proposal. A 10% bonus might be reasonable.

Senator Donie Cassidy: Such a scheme would encourage and assist young students in obtaining employment.

Senator David Norris: I must protest at the Leader’s proposal. As a former teacher, I say that this proposal is madness. It will drive down academic standards. We will be a laughing stock.

(Interruptions).
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris has not made a point of order. He should allow the Leader to continue.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: The Leader’s proposal would amount to a lowering of standards.

Senator Donie Cassidy: Let us consider my proposal.

(Interruptions).
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: It would lower standards.

An Cathaoirleach: Members must allow the Leader to reply to the Order of Business.

Senator David Norris: The proposal he has made is absurd.

Senator Donie Cassidy: Those of us who are used to providing employment can talk from experience.

Senator David Norris: So can I. I have given jobs in at least two areas.

Order of Business - 10th March 2009

Order of Business - 10th March 2009
Senator David Norris: I had intended to raise several issues today. However, this is such a tragically important day that I will, like other Members, confine myself to the tragic events in Northern Ireland. I agree entirely with Senator Hanafin that these people are gangsters. Before coming into the Chamber, I heard a speaker on RTE radio claim they are not gangsters. What else are they? They operate in armed gangs to subvert the democratically expressed wish of the people of this island, North and South, and they care not a damn for the law or for family, decency or anything else. In my book at least, whatever about the views of callers to Joe Duffy’s radio show, they are gangsters.
As Senator Hanafin said, these tragic events constitute yet another poisoned gift from the people who gave us the Omagh bombing. These are people who, in the words of the great songwriter Paul Brady in his wonderful song, “The Island”, are “still trying to carve tomorrow from a tombstone”. They have nothing positive to offer, only death. It is as though the economic disaster we are all trying to face was not enough, they have to add murder, grief and misery. As an Irishman and a representative of this noble House of Parliament, it is my view that they have dishonoured and sullied the name of Ireland throughout the world. Their actions have brought shame on the country and will have negative political, economic and cultural consequences for us all.
We do not know who the perpetrators are but we know some of their characteristics. The first is arrogance. They have decided, with no standing whatever, that they can decide who is a legitimate target. How are they legitimate? Why are they targets? Who gave them this right? Then they appoint themselves as executioners. They certainly do not obey the laws of war in this regard; there is no chivalry there. Wounded people lying on the ground are finished off with an extra shot. It is an appalling situation. Another characteristic of these people is that they are totally lacking in imagination. They apparently cannot imagine the grief that will be caused to the families of these young people.
We were all so hopeful prior to the events of recent days. Only last week we celebrated the taking down of the bomb-proof shutters from the Ulster Hall so that it could be opened up as a place where people could listen to music and celebrate. I presume it will now be closed. Once again we are hearing phrases, such as “widespread condemnation”, we hoped never again to hear. I am sorry to say that those responsible for these attacks are completely indifferent to such condemnation. They are stupid people whose stupidity is shown by the fact that their actions are completely counterproductive. Why in every generation must ordinary, decent people, from both communities and on both sides of the Border, pay the price of the education of these moral imbeciles? They will eventually learn and will eventually say their actions were a mistake and were not worthwhile. In the meantime, however, decent people will have to pay for all the suffering they cause.

Senator Eoghan Harris: There is an element of posturing in some of the condemnation we have heard. The Real IRA and Continuity IRA will do this again. They will kill someone else the week after this and the following month. We will be standing around here hand wringing. While Senators Fitzgerald and MacSharry speak for me on the moral issue, we should move on because we have a moral obligation to take our responsibilities. The Chinese have a proverb that says you cannot stop the blackbirds of evil flying over your head but you can stop them making a nest in your hair. We cannot affect what happens in Northern Ireland by hand wringing and condemnation but we can affect the Republic.
We should have done more in peace time to mend community tensions. The reaction to the killings was not uniformly fast and condemnatory of a murderous attack on human beings. There was a 14-hour delay from Sinn Féin, which was caused politically by the SDLP taking a green position on the activation of the special reconnaissance unit. This drove Sinn Féin into taking a 100% green position on the 50% green position. The result was that Sinn Féin was paralysed politically in the aftermath of the killing at the weekend. That is neglecting the peace process on the part of Sinn Féin, the SDLP and ourselves for not pressurising them to mind the peace rather better. Dr. Johnson said that a man is to keep his friendships in good repair and we must keep the peace process in good repair. It was not kept in repair; we wiped our hands of it.
I ask Senators to stop posturing and to join with me in calling on the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to do what can be done. From a security point of view, we have major emergency powers legislation available. I will not mention the “i” word because Senators are already preparing their speeches about how we should not ratchet it up and we must not overreact. I expect to read an exclusive interview with the Real IRA next Sunday explaining it all away. I have been through all this in my lifetime, with the bleeding heart stuff and the apologias. To those who are preparing speeches about not ratcheting it up, we have a moral obligation to shut down the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA on this side of the Border. We can do so because we know their names. The police and security forces and the Garda Síochána know their names and there are only 100 of them. They use safe houses, they have friends and relations and we can shut them down. We can use emergency powers so that they cannot run from the North. That would at least free up the chief constable in Northern Ireland to look after the security situation there as best he can. This will be borne on the bodies of ordinary policemen, Catholic and Protestant, over the next months because they will die. Many more of them will die.
We must do two things, first of all by shutting down the security situation. I will not use the“i” word but I remind Members that internment never failed in the Irish Republic.

Senator David Norris: Senator Harris has used it now.

Senator Eoghan Harris: It worked in 1922, it worked in 1939 and it worked in 1956. It failed in Northern Ireland but never here. We should put it to Sinn Féin that in the upcoming by-elections, unless they stop using weasel words and unless they come out cleaner and faster in their condemnation, they will pay a political price in the Republic for their weasel words.

Senator David Norris: On a point of order, I do not believe for one second that anyone in this House was guilty of posturing and I ask Senator Harris to withdraw that suggestion.

An Cathaoirleach: A point of order must be on procedure. The Senator has already contributed.

Senator Eoghan Harris: I said there were bleeding hearts in this House who would try to stop the security measures I proposed.

Investment of the National Pensions Reserve Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2009 - Second Stage Debate - 5th March 2009

Investment of the National Pensions Reserve Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2009 -Second Stage Debate - 5th March 2009

Senator David Norris: I had not anticipated being the first speaker from the Independent group and I am certainly not the most qualified. I have some observations to make with an unusual degree of humility because I recognise my lack of expertise in this matter. I also recognise the expertise of the Minister of State in this area. However, I have some questions to ask about this legislation. As I entered the Chamber, I think I heard my distinguished colleague, Senator Hanafin, refer to the question of hedge funds. I raised this matter on the Order of Business, as did Senator Hanafin who backed up what I said. The Minister of State might be in a position to give some view on this. On the radio this morning, Mr. Brendan Keenan alleged that one of the difficulties in terms of fiscal policy for the Government was that London-based hedge funds were gambling extensively against the Irish currency. This is a particularly nasty practice so we should examine the operation of hedge funds and their ethical background. I welcome the fact that, within the past year, both archbishops of Dublin spoke on the ethics of international financial dealings. Although I am not in any sense an expert in this area, I asked a friend of mine, who is something of an expert, what was a hedge fund and he said it was basically somebody betting on failure, like betting on a football team to lose. It has been noted scientifically that the establishment of an experiment, including the process of observation and calculation, can have a damaging and detrimental effect.
Putting hedge funds aside, however, I wish to raise another question arising from that radio programme, which a large proportion of people would have heard. Mr. Keenan, who writes on these matters for the Independent Group and is usually fairly balanced, said there was not a single person in the Department of Finance who had any economic qualifications. I wonder if this could possibly be true.

Deputy Martin Mansergh: Well, I have some.

Senator David Norris: What a relief that the Minister of State has some, but he is disposable. That is the thing. He is a mere ephemera in the situation. It is like the old Robert Bridges poem which includes the line, “But I go on forever”. We have the permanent Civil Service. I am just wondering what the level of expertise is because apparently the contrast was that there are 100 civil servants in the financial section of the Northern Ireland civil service. I am not somebody who believes that one must stuff every area of life with academics. I believe in hands-on management, but an academic view is sometimes of assistance because it is impartial.
This legislation indicates the severity of the problem whereby we will have to break the piggy-bank to go to the cinema. We are basically smashing the little ceramic pig and taking out all the pennies. There has been a cautious response from Monsieur Trichet at the European Central Bank. He seems to have a number of reservations about this operation, although he is not in a position to annul it completely. A recent ECB opinion document stated that there should be a co-ordinated approach. Perhaps the Minister of State will assure us with regard to the level of co-ordination across Europe with our partner countries. It also refers to the temporary nature of this legislation and matters such as any effect to limit distortions in financial markets. I am putting these matters on the record as they are published in this ECB opinion.
The document states the common principles to be adhered to as follows:

(i) interventions should be timely and the support should in principle be temporary; (ii) the interests of taxpayers should be protected; (iii) existing shareholders should bear the due consequences of the intervention.
The latter one seems a little harsh to me. What are the due consequences? With regard to Allied Irish Banks and Bank of Ireland, the Minister might indicate what the ultimate consequences will be because many people would be interested in hearing about this. I am saying this because I have had a most horrendous time at the hands of Irish builders. I delight in the collapse of the building industry by and large. I think the builders asked for it and behaved like the French aristocrats prior to the arrival of the tumbrels.
However, there are decent builders and I ultimately came to one of them. He was a young married man who worked hard and behaved with extraordinary integrity. He, unfortunately, invested his savings in Anglo Irish Bank shares which are now wiped out. The due consequences should fall on the directors of the banks and those who took decisions. The investors, by and large, should be afforded some protection.
The ECB’s observations continued:

(iv) the government should be in a position to bring about a change of management; (v) management should not retain undue benefits [I say “Yes” to that]; (vi) governments may have, inter alia the power to intervene in remuneration[.]
I am not sure if that power is other than persuasive. I do not believe governments have a direct power to determine exact remuneration. The legislation, taken as a whole, may be somewhat lax in this regard.
The ECB’s observations continue, “(vii) legitimate interest of competitors must be protected, in particular through the State aid rules and negative spill-over effects should be avoided”. On the Order of Business, I had a fair amount to say on competition issues. It is a cautious view but it does not say we must not pursue this course of action.
Will this Bill be enough? The Government has opened the books to the Opposition parties, which I welcome. I do not agree with my colleague who said this was a cynical move to mire the Opposition in some kind of machiavellian plot. That is far too cynical a view to take of politics. However, it is an informed view for whatever reason. The Government has also opened the books to the social partners. When will the banks’ books be opened? We need to know the depth of the problem. Is it a mirage that alters all the time? It reminds me of the film “Flubber” in which a mad scientist discovers a green material which keeps altering its dimensions and shape. Is the indebtedness of the banks a kind of economic flubber that we will never get to end of and will fly around doing all kind of damage?
I must pay a compliment to the Oireachtas Library and Research Service for providing debate packs so that we can have a more informed debate. I notice in one of the articles enclosed in the pack that there was a call from a reporter wanting another prominent political person to call for the resignation of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan. That is fatuous. I do not envy his job. I commend him as a person of considerable integrity and decency. I would understand if he were to resign voluntarily. How could anyone bear the responsibility of that horrible job at the moment? I welcome the fact that he is taking on board views from other people.
Returning to the breaking of the piggy bank, it suggests to me we are in difficult circumstances. The pension reserve was launched in 2000 by the then Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, because of the changing demographics and age profile which would have an impact on the capacity of the State to pay pensions and social welfare benefits, especially after 2025. The fund set aside 1% of gross national product every year to provide for this perceived problem in the future. It was to remain inviolable and was legislated in such a way that it was ring-fenced so that Governments could not use the moneys for other purposes. I welcomed this provision at the time, as I welcomed any steps any Governments took to pay off the national debt and putting aside moneys for the rainy day. There was an absolute prohibition on drawdowns until 2025. Will the Minister inform the House if the Government has considered the impact from 2025 on its ability to pay pensions now that the fund is being used in this manner? Before the establishment of the fund, we had committed ourselves to a rather lackadaisical system of paying pensions out of day-to-day revenue which was found to be very unsatisfactory.
I knew the fund’s initial chairman, the late Mr. Donal J. Geaney, founder of Élan, who engaged my services to talk at Trinity College Dublin. Alas his financial experiences towards the end of his life were not entirely positive.
I hope the Minister of State will be in a position to answer the questions I have raised. I have felt for some time that we need to know the exact scale of the problem. The banks’ books need to be opened. We need to know if these will be enough funds because it is taxpayers’ money. Can we rely on the assurances of the banks that these funds will be used productively? I note 10% will be put aside by the banks to provide lending capacity to small and medium-sized enterprises and an additional 30% capacity to first-time buyers in 2009. What happens in 2010? I know interest rates are going down but a time will come when they go up again. It is all very well theoretically for the banks to say 30%.
This is taxpayers’ money going into the banks to make up for the poor decisions of their executives. Accountability is needed in this action. I am not for the creation of a toxic bank but a bank to extract the dangerous and speculative property-based loans.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I must ask the Senator to conclude.

Senator David Norris: I just want to come to a full stop. These loans should be put into a national property management agency. At the same time, we could bring all the banks together and have a State bank, a real bank of Ireland. That is where we could don the green jersey, roll the good elements together and put all the nasty stuff — it might be only nasty for a temporary period — into a national property management agency. It might allow the people to benefit by 2025.
I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for his indulgence and the Minister of State for his forbearance. Many ordinary people like me will be interested in the Minister of State’s answers to the simple questions I have asked.

Order of Business - 5th March 2009

Order of Business - 5th March 2009
Senator David Norris: I greatly fear that Senator Alex White might be correct in his perception that this House is becoming increasingly irrelevant. That could explain why, once again, less that one third of the Members are present for the Order of Business, as has been the case over the past two weeks.
I welcome the indictment of the President of Sudan on war crimes charges. His response was to exclude a number of aid organisations, including Médecin San Frontières, which means that many people in the camps will not be immunised against meningitis and will die. His response is to sentence more people to death. I am glad this indictment has been made and I hope a similar warrant will issue for Mr. George Bush and his cronies, another president who deserves this treatment.
I support my colleagues’ call for a debate on the economy, be it a rolling debate or otherwise. We hear news all the time on the radio, such as the Government opening the books to the Opposition and the social partners. How about forcing the banks to open their books? We would all like to know what is in them too. I was horrified to hear that nobody in the Department of Finance has an economic qualification. I do not believe everybody must be academic but apparently there are 100 such qualified people in the ministry in the North of Ireland, which is one third the size of this country. I agree that we must examine matters such as child benefit. Again, I rely on the wireless for news because we have not had this debate here. Children must be protected but if, as was stated this morning on the airwaves, there are people in receipt of child benefit who use the benefit to go on skiing holidays, it is an obscenity. We must look at where the money is. It is not just a case of technically fiddling with the income tax rate but of finding out where the money is.
We should have a debate on hedge funds. Mr. Brendan Keenan has said that one of the problems with the economy is that London-based hedge funds are gambling against the Irish economy and deliberately driving it down. They want to do us in so they can collect the pickings. I want to know about that. I was astonished to learn that Mr. Garret FitzGerald, “Saint Garret”, recently retired from them. I wonder about the ethics of that.
Finally, let us examine competition. We have made a tin god out of competition but we do not understand the difference between competition and competitiveness. The Competition Authority should be put in the firing line, given its record. The abolition of the groceries order sent prices up, not down as it claimed it would. The licensing of every huckster’s shop in Dublin to sell hard booze sent the alcoholism rate up. We are keeping electricity prices high in the name of competition. Selling off eircom was not the decision of the Competition Authority but privatisation was supposed to result in competition. Private investors asset stripped the company, did not invest a penny in broadband and then flogged the company to an Australian pension company.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has made his point.

Senator David Norris: There is also the problem with taxis. Taxi drivers were forced to increase their prices against their wishes. They are protesting on the streets today. It is absurd. A ridiculous number of unqualified people are coming into the taxi sector. The Competition Authority is now opposing the freezing of drink prices. What is going on? Finally, there is what happened to the most vulnerable people, that is, low paid workers in the acting profession who do voice-over work. They were screwed by the Competition Authority and threatened with being hauled before the courts to face criminal prosecutions simply because they banded together. Let us have this issue out in the open. Let us discuss competition, what it is and if it is uniquely and inevitably in the interest of the Irish people. I do not think so.

Private Members Motion on Local Economic Initiatives - 4th March 2009

Private Members Motion on Local Economic Initiatives - 4th March 2009
Senator David Norris: I thank Senator Twomey for so generously sharing time. I cannot understand why the Government could not accept the amendment tabled by Senator O’Toole. Apart from any other consideration, the Senator possesses quite an amount of knowledge in respect of this matter because he is a founder member of a credit union. He has placed before the House certain clear facts which are apparently inarguable. As far as I can see, the Minister of State replied to them with bluster and assertion and I am surprised that he would do so.
I heard a report on the BBC World Service in respect of an Indian national — I believe he is a doctor — who is one of the originators of microfinance within his country. The immense good that can be done by the spreading of comparatively small loans out into communities is what I have always understood to underpin the notion of credit unions. I have various friends who are members of the credit unions in RTE and elsewhere and I am aware of the wonderful work these institutions do in supporting ordinary people. Credit unions provide people with loans to purchase cars, pay for weddings or funerals or fund repairs to their homes. Such lending is extremely socially constructive in nature.
When listening to the radio again in recent days, I discovered that the Mitchelstown credit union, which I hope will survive and prosper, has 17,000 members and had got above itself to some degree. I understand that some of the loans it has extended to people were for amounts up to €250,000. I would imagine that a loan for this amount represents exactly what is meant by a sub-prime mortgage. I presume that one would use €250,000 either to support another loan which has gone bad or to finance the purchase of a house. This matter gives rise to serious cause for concern.
I was trying to recall the identity of a certain person who was involved in the foundation of the credit union movement in Ireland 50 years ago and I realised that Marian Finucane’s aunt was the individual in question. Ms Finucane often speaks about her aunt with great pride and she is perfectly right in doing so.
More than 50% of the Minister of State’s contribution related directly to the amendment tabled by Senator O’Toole. One of the points he made, which was extremely instructive, is that the Financial Regulator does not have a very good track record. Regulators in this country are, in general, under suspicion. In addition, the Financial Regulator lacks teeth. When the House debated the legislation relating to libel, I raised a question as to whether the word “direct” actually means command. Those on the Government side stated that it does not mean command and provided legal definitions to support their assertion. They cannot have it both ways. Either the word “direct” means that one can command or inform people to implement a particular regime or else its meaning is different. The Minister of State indicated that the word “direct” does mean to command but Government advisers previously stated that it implies no such meaning. It seems the Financial Regulator is quite ineffective if it can only exhort institutions to take certain actions but does not possess the means to compel them to do so.
A clear conflict of fact has arisen in respect of the matter under discussion. Senator O’Toole referred to loan impairments and difficulties relating to liquidity. I had a brief, whispered conversation with the Senator — I hope it did not disturb other Members to any great degree — and I understand the Irish League of Credit Unions, ILCU, has been the subject of appeals from a number of credit unions which are in difficulty and which are seeking funds to improve their liquidity. The ILCU refused their requests.

Senator Joe O’Toole: On the record.

Senator David Norris: Exactly. How can the Minister of State assert that their is no problem as regards liquidity? It simply does not make sense. I am not stating that the Minister of State is inimical to the truth or even that he is lying, which would be a frightful thing to say. However, I am stating that he has been ill advised and that the material he has placed on the record of the House should be revised. I hope he will have an opportunity to make such a revision. If not, perhaps his colleague, Senator Boyle, or whoever is charged with replying to the debate will address this point. Those on the Government side are not doing anyone any credit by not correcting the record.
I could support the Green Party’s motion because I completely agree with the concept of microfinance which is extremely positive in social terms. However, I also strongly support Senator O’Toole’s amendment. I would like the opportunity, therefore, to support both in a composite motion. If the latter is not forthcoming, I shall attempt to gallop back to the House from the micro-reception being held in Trinity College for the pro-chancellor to vote against the motion as tabled.