Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

During the debate on NAMA, I proposed the social investment clause which the then Minister for Finance, the late Brian Lenihan, accepted. It was one of the few changes a Minister for Finance ever accepted in anything. I am disappointed it has not worked out or been utilised more. However, there is something that might be helpful to the committee or to Ireland in general. Patricia King referred to NESC on a number of occasions. If it was possible for an opinion to be published again by such a body setting out those proposals regarding mixed models of funding and so forth, it might be very useful to do it now. Certainly, there is a strong perception of huge inhibitions because of the rules referred to earlier on state aid and the structure on which NAMA was based suddenly coming in for later attack. In fact, there have been suggestions in the public media by a group of developers that they are contesting even the current NAMA housing section on the principle that it constitutes an unfair state aid. If there was advice through ICTU or NESC that was strong and robust, it might give the Government more courage in that regard.

I was delighted to hear Dr. McDonnell mention the Maynooth line. The electrification of the Maynooth line in the current plan is not sufficiently prioritised in my view. In terms of product, that is the one that will produce the greatest commuter benefit and has the highest potential to reduce private car flow into Dublin. There have been a number of positive developments, such as the line up to Broombridge and the opening of the tunnel under the Phoenix Park, but the electrification is being long-fingered now. Does ICTU have a view on that development? The west side of Dublin, like Fingal, is the key population development area for the future and the electrification of that line would accelerate the trains, particularly if it was carried out far down on the line.

I have a final question. In the context of the challenges facing Ireland with Brexit, do the witnesses think it is possible, perhaps using the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund as a model, to make a proposal for a compensation fund for Ireland in respect of the costs that will arise from Brexit and the re-adjustments, re-alignments and so forth that will have to be made? ICTU is part of the European Trade Union Confederation. The fiscal stability rules were set by Germany quite a long time ago but the EU does not appear to have found a satisfactory mechanism for change up to now. When one talks to people privately they are quite open to change but no mechanism has been found yet. Are there ideas in the European trade union movement as to what the mechanism would be? The Italians want to invest more capital and for that not to count as part of the deficit. There are many other examples. Greece would like to do that and it would make a great deal of sense. From the witnesses' wider international contacts do they see any model which, perhaps, the committee might put forward to the Government as a means of getting over this huge inhibition relating to the fiscal rules? I have met Andrew McDowell, as I am sure the witnesses have, who was formerly the adviser to the Taoiseach and is now the European Investment Bank's representative to Ireland. He is dying to spend money and we are dying to receive it, but we do not seem to be able to bridge the gap.