Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I would like to contribute.

I support this amendment. As Deputy Higgins outlined, it is fairly extraordinary that the areas of so-called expertise which are to be required for those appointed to the board of the National Treasury Management Agency are the same as those found among the circle of so-called experts in the areas of investment, finance and economics - precisely the cohort of people who failed to grasp what was happening in the economy. In many, if not most, cases they cheered on the property madness that pumped up the property bubble. They failed to see the crash coming and right up to the last minute they were talking about soft landings, denouncing people who were critical of what was going on as being insane or off the wall, and in various other ways vilifying the critics of what the so-called experts were doing. Then they made disastrous decisions about how to deal with the consequences of their own failures. Yet there does not seem to be any lessons learned about that experience. The same gang and categories of so-called expert are wheeled in. It is indicative of our approach, which is still very top-down and elitist, to how we deal with our economy and what is viewed as the purpose of it. The prevailing view seems to be that the people are there to serve the economy, with the economic experts as the ones who know about it, rather than the economy being there to serve the interests, objectives, aspirations and needs of the ordinary people.

In all of these matters we start the wrong way around, and no lessons appear to have been learned about the consequences of doing this, even after the most devastating economic crash. I jest not when I say that the list should read: (a) the dogs in the street; (b) a granny; and (c) any worker in the building industry. We should also include the whole range of other categories of ordinary citizen who drew attention to the fact that what was happening was mad but who were not listened to because they were not considered to be experts, while the so-called experts thought what we were doing was right and did not foresee the crash right up to the last minute. There should be some acknowledgement of this in the make-up of the agency. I am serious when I suggest the inclusion in the list of the dogs in the street and, perhaps, every taxi driver, because it was they, in the context of some of the buildings that were being constructed and the sale prices being achieved for land and property, who knew that what was happening was crazy and was going to go bang. However, the opinions of ordinary people who could see what was obvious were not taken on board, and instead the so-called experts dictated and dominated the debate.

Another group of people who should be seriously considered worthy of being on such boards is people who are actually experts in some of the key areas where investments are likely to be made. The Minister of State will be aware of my interest in the forestry issue. It took a huge campaign on the part of people much more knowledgeable than I about forestry to raise awareness of what was at stake in terms of the sale of the forests, because they understood how valuable a resource it is. Eventually, as a result of their knowledge, the Government was forced to change its mind and acknowledge how valuable the forests are and what a big mistake it would be to sell them off. One could say the same about housing and the people on housing lists, or those who represent them, or distressed mortgage holders. Given how central the issue of housing was and the marketing of housing as a commodity on which to make money, which was a disastrous approach, it is important that membership of boards is at least balanced and includes people who understand that the basic point of housing is to put a roof over the heads of human beings. It might be useful to at least balance the property experts with those people.

See this speech in context