Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)

They are unhappy because of what has happened to our economy over the last couple of years. They have given us a huge mandate to sort out the unholy mess that was made by the previous Government. Some serious decisions will have to be taken on this side of the House. We are ready for that challenge. When Opposition Deputies speak, it is important for them to try to tell the truth. They should understand they were also elected to try to help the people to get out of the mess this country is in. Some ridiculous statements that were made in this House are quietly being put to rest as solid arguments against them are made by Ministers on this side of the House. We will constantly face tough challenges over the next couple of years. We will have to deal with them.

It is important to continue to look for solutions to the problems we face. A few weeks ago, the Master of the High Court said that if a Government Minister would meet him, he could draw up a solution to the problem of mortgage arrears on the back of an envelope. I would be interested to know whether the Judiciary is prepared to use the Civil Liability Act 1961 to help people with mortgage arrears. This legislation, which has been around since the early 1960s, allows the question of whether the banks were reckless in offering loans to be taken into account. It has the potential to help people with mortgage arrears, but it has not been tested in the courts because nobody has taken a case to the point at which a member of the Judiciary could make a decision on it. I would be interested to hear members of the Judiciary comment on that. If this legislation can be used to show the banks were reckless to a certain degree, it might ensure that a degree of responsibility is placed on them. The banks gave loans to people who are now being pursued through the courts to continue to make repayments. We should seek answers from the Judiciary with regard to this legislation and ascertain whether they have any concerns about it.

Members of the Irish Farmers Association are protesting in Dublin today about the margins being taken by multinational companies on farm produce. I will not get into that debate now because I am sure it will arise during the Private Members' debate later this evening. It is interesting that the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement raided the offices of the IFA to confiscate computers as part of its investigation into insider trading. It astounds me that the same office is unable to get the passwords of some computers in Anglo Irish Bank. That situation has been going on for a couple of years. We need to try to get answers to questions of this nature on the floor of the House. Why has the investigation into Anglo Irish Bank been dragging on for so long? Why was the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, accompanied by the Garda Síochána, able to threaten IFA staff who refused to hand over their computers with arrest and prosecution on suspicion of breaking competition law when, at the same time, that office has been unable to compel Anglo Irish Bank staff to provide the passwords of laptops as part of its investigation into the greatest corporate scandal in the history of this State? I would like answers to these questions.

I spoke in the House two weeks ago about the issue of burning bondholders. Many Opposition Deputies have had a great deal to say on the matter. The Government's position is that it is not really the way forward. Two days after I spoke about the matter in the House, Professor Morgan Kelly argued in a newspaper article that we should default, basically, on over €100 billion of State loans. He made the consequences of such an approach quite clear. He said that if we default, we will have to adjust next year's budget by €20 billion because we will no longer be in a position to get any loans from anybody. He said that in such circumstances, we will have to cut social welfare payments and public sector pay by a third, we will probably have to increase taxes and we will add such unpredictability to our economy that nobody will be sure where we are going. I am surprised that Opposition Deputies have not commented on what Professor Kelly had to say. Have they realised the idea of burning bondholders is a flawed policy that would land everyone in this country who is in trouble in a serious crisis? When questions of this nature are thrown across the floor, it is sometimes useful to throw them back. When Opposition Deputies are commenting on the Professor Kelly doctrine, which has been espoused by some of them since the day this Government was elected, perhaps they will explain its consequences for the people.

This House needs to have a serious debate on the Croke Park agreement. Significant portions of the agreement are expected to have been implemented by the beginning of September, which is 12 weeks away.

If the political establishment, public servants and everyone else involved in providing services fail to co-operate on the implementation of the Croke Park agreement, it will result in a serious crisis. As the International Monetary Fund has pointed out, if we do not make substantial progress in addressing our problems, it may unilaterally take difficult decisions on our behalf. This should be the focus of our debates in the coming weeks.

This is straightforward legislation which includes a levy on pension funds. It will be necessary to continue the debate on providing pensions for the vast majority of employees who do not have an occupational pension. The value of my small, private pension has been decimated, not because a levy of 0.6% is to be imposed on it but because the fund managers made poor investment decisions. Despite the value of many pension funds declining by between 20% and 50% in recent years, pension management companies continued to charge significant management fees. These fees are not applied to the profits they make but to the total value of the fund and are far in excess of 0.6%, the level at which the Government levy has been set.

Opposition spokespersons and pension fund managers argue that the proposed Government measures will create a crisis in pension funds. It is the mismanagement of pension funds that will create the crisis. The previous Government failed to address the excessive management fees charged by pension funds. In its 14 years in power, it did not conclusively address the issue of providing pensions for citizens who do not have access to occupational pension funds, notwithstanding the many discussions in the House on White Papers and Green Papers on pension reform. The House must continue to debate pensions and produce innovative solutions to ensure those who are fortunate enough to have a job can pay into a pension fund with confidence that it will be available to them when they retire. Many of those who retire in the next five to ten years will not receive the level of pension they expected. This has nothing to do with the 0.6% levy which is being introduced to try to rejuvenate the economy but the result of pension fund management. This issue must be given serious consideration. The Government will take on board any constructive proposals made by the Opposition.

Only a few, short years ago, the annual interest repayments on the national debt amounted to less than €1 billion. Next November, the Vote in the budget for interest repayments on the national debt will be in excess of €4 billion. The difference between these figures would pay for many school places and hospital beds. While many more difficult decisions will need to be made in future, the Government is prepared to make them while minimising the hurt and pain they cause to citizens. That is what being a responsible Government is about.

See this speech in context