Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

When the IFSC was set up, I believe in 1987, I was one of those who moaned about it and was a detractor. I said it would never work and the jobs targets were far too high. I regarded it as an election gimmick, one of Charles Haughey's mad ideas. When I said this, I was cheered on by the leading socialists of the day, who were hoping it would not work for reasons of ideology.

I was wrong; that happens too. If one embarks on the bold business of making predictions, one sometimes gets it badly wrong. I am glad to say I was wrong. I am glad that due to the efforts of IDA Ireland and other organisations which would not be my favourite semi-State bodies and due to some fairly strange massaging and extraordinary concessions given to AIB and Bank of Ireland to make them move into the centre and which meant the centre was initially featherbedded, it succeeded.

The IFSC with its various functions has become a recognisable success in the global world of finance. I say that without apology. It has also done something very important. It has provided an extraordinarily large number of jobs. To do that it has had to do something I see very little shame in, which is make tax concessions to outside companies to attract them to come here.

It is the same argument as applies in favour of corporate tax, which is about attracting multinationals. The question we must ask ourselves is whether we want those companies that come into the IFSC. Are we so pure that we should be telling them we do not want them here because we do not like the way they do business and because they are too big and powerful? I do not want to live in a country that is barren but pure. I do not want to live in a country that says to these types of companies that we do not like what they do and they should go somewhere else and allow us to live in poverty instead.

There have, of course, been problems with a large number of the companies that have come here. Nevertheless, I say God bless the multinationals and the employment they have given us. God bless the foreign funds that come here. I say this as one who has benefited as a director of one of these companies. In fact, at this time, I am a director of a company that is registered in the IFSC. While declaring that interest, I emphasise the benefits these companies give to the country. The multinationals that come here are not acceding to the classical trade union diktats in respect of their workers. They are not acceding to the sort of culture we prefer here. They are, however, providing jobs and making us more prosperous. That is very important to people in this country and to the Government.

Deputy Boyd Barrett is right in much of what he says in so far as he related the facts about what the Government is about here. This is a deregulating Bill. The Government is very coy about that, but it is a fact. I have read the briefing notes on the legislation and listened carefully to the Minister of State's speech, but there is no mention anywhere that this is about deregulation. Why should the Government be coy about it? The purpose of that deregulation is to attract finance which would otherwise go to London, Luxembourg or the United States. That is what we are about here.

I share the fears of everybody in this House regarding deregulation. However, there is a world of difference between what happens to the retail investor and what happens to the large investor. The people this will attract are those who are called professional investors, which might be a euphemism. We are talking about parties who will invest hundreds of millions in one go. Indeed, the Minister of State referred to funds in the trillions. These are sophisticated people who understand, on the whole, the risks they are taking. We certainly could, if we like, tell them to go away and spend their money in Luxembourg because we do not want it. It seems to me, however, that if they are doing nothing that is utterly immoral, which they are not, then we cannot live in an ivory tower about what is happening here. Our position must be that we welcome this particular industry and its activities but we must regulate them properly.

Deputy Michael McGrath pointed out that our ranking as an international financial services centre has sunk from being almost in single digit figures into the 70s. That is very serious. The Bill before us today is one way of tackling that. My guess, however, is that our reputation is sinking for a reason which is not tackled in this Bill and which has in many ways got worse, namely, that our regulator has lost the confidence of many international global investors. I do not say that lightly. The Central Bank in Ireland, which we have done so much to seek to improve and prop up, does not have the same reputation as the Bank of England, the US Federal Reserve and other national regulators. What is often ignored in these discussions is what has happened since the crash of 2007-08. In the case of Custom House Capital, to give one example, retail investors were fleeced. The Central Bank was utterly asleep on the job and is still unable to do anything. That issue is a running sore for retail investors.

Another very serious issue is reflected in a comment I heard the Tánaiste make this morning to the effect that the Central Bank is an independent body. That is news to me. In fact, it is only nominally an independent body. This week, two directors, Mr. Michael Soden and Mr. Des Geraghty, were reappointed to the board of the Central Bank by the Minister for Finance. If I were an outside investor considering taking a risk with my money in any of these funds, I would be asking what in the name of God is the Minister doing appointing Mr. Des Geraghty to the board of the Central Bank. What is more, in the past five years, that individual has been chairman of the bank's risk committee. Mr. Geraghty has many great qualities but what in the name of God he is doing on the board of the Central Bank, I do not know.

These appointments tell outside investors all they need to know about how we do business in this country in terms of regulation. We were promised in the past week that people would be appointed on the basis of talent or expertise. Under the radar, however, we have somebody who happens to be a former president of SIPTU, a member of the Labour Party, a militant believer in social partnership and great supporter of the current Government landing a lucrative position on the board of the Central Bank without any knowledge that we know of, according to his CV, of banking, central banking or regulation. He knows a lot about being a member of God knows how many political parties, but there is no justification for the Government appointing him or people like him to these positions.

We must ask ourselves how we can have confidence in the Central Bank when people who are cronies of people in Government have regularly been appointed by this and the previous Administration. A former Governor of the Central Bank was a member of Mr. Bertie Ahern's dig-out gang.

See this speech in context