Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Bill gives the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, direct responsibility for what is left of the National Pensions Reserve Fund, NPRF. We expected this to be one of the Government's first actions in getting projects up and running. It is important that what is left of the fund delivers a return, given our pension time bomb. The critical date is 2025, which is one of the reasons the NPRF was set up in the first instance.

A substantial amount of the fund, some €20.7 billion, was pumped into the banks. Of that, only €13.3 billion will be retained, signifying a direct loss of approximately €7 billion, poking a sizable hole in the fund. We must keep sight of this fact at all times when considering the fund's function and how to use it properly as an economic stimulus, particularly in terms of job creation. One can have growth, but one can also have job-rich growth. Although I have problems with this legislation, it is important that the money be used wisely.

We do not have a good heritage of building institutions. Many of the State's institutions are carry-overs, as it were, from the time before the State's founding. Some of those we have created have not served us well. The greatest example in this regard is the HSE. As such, I have been considering who will control the NTMA. It seems that its CEO will report directly to the Minister. A board of six people, including a chair, will be appointed, but the Minister will make the decisions. It is important that the Oireachtas have meaningful oversight of and input into decisions or, at least, the scrutiny thereof.

Another issue relates to the payment of board appointees. It appears to be at the Minister's discretion, but there can be wide variations in the amounts paid to people who sit on boards. For example, board members in the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, are paid twice as much as those who sit on the RTE authority. There must be rationalisation of this situation, as the variations are not explicable.

The NPRF was established in 2001 with a view to helping the social and private pension economies from 2025 onwards. Given that it has been decimated, however, it is important that any investment be made in a way that gives a return. The Government has advertised that €6.9 billion is available for investment, but that is not the truth, as €1.2 billion of it has been already committed, including as part of the €250 million that has been "invested" in Irish Water, an amount that has come from many different sources. In reality, there is only an approximate €4.8 billion available, and it would have been more honest to say so.

It is positive that this fund can be used to leverage financing from the European Investment Bank, EIB. I have been arguing for a different type of housing programme, one that offers people the opportunity to rent their homes for the duration of their lives instead of relying on a rental sector that is based either on local authorities or private, short-term tenures. A substantial amount of money is available from the EIB, but some of the charities cannot draw it down because they need to provide a certain level of guarantee. Their governance does not allow them to make losses. That said, houses are required and this presents an opportunity to provide a different option, one that is not exclusively for people who are financially dependent. A mixed group would prevent ghettoisation on the basis of poverty. Substantial work could be done in this regard, for example, through co-partner arrangements.

A requirement of any potential investment is to attract matching investment from an outside source. Many Deputies have been pointing out that pension funds in Ireland could be more productively used within the State. The Nevin Economic Research Institute, NERI, referred to the "multiplier effect of targeted productive investment" in terms of job creation. An impressive number of people could find work if investment was targeted correctly. This has led to a demand for the fund to be used instead of just being allowed to sit there. In this way, people could be taken off the dole and other social protection payments and start doing something that is of some value to the economy and society.

Short, medium and long-term investments are required, including in education and training. One of the so-called bundles involves a partnership with the Department of Education and Skills in the provision of schools. What return would there be from such a public-private partnership, PPP? Some PPPs have been very much to the advantage of those on the private side of the arrangements. We need only consider the shadow tolling of some toll roads. It was almost like a lottery ticket.

There was a guaranteed return because the State had to provide sufficient numbers of vehicles, even though that was not a particularly sustainable approach.

On the issue of State claims, it is a bit like David and Goliath. I hope there will be a difference in culture because I believe the State takes on issues it should not take on just because it can do so. I recall that under a previous Government, between 2004 and 2007, €20 million - I know that figure is correct because I asked a number of parliamentary questions at the time - was spent fighting parents in the courts who were seeking appropriate education for their children, when that €20 million would have provided a substantial amount of what was required. There should be an examination of the cases the State fights to determine whether they could be done in a different way that would save money, rather than always trooping down to the Four Courts to defend issues when it could make the necessary change.

I have mixed feelings about this legislation. We have been waiting a long time for it but I have concerns about the control and targeting of the investment. I have concerns about the private sector doing particularly well out of it at the expense of the State. If that happens, it will be a real problem.

See this speech in context