Joe O'Toole (Independent)

In terms of the issue raised by Senator MacSharry, now that I have got off the gravy train, I would be able to give some time to chairing such a committee.

One of the things we need to do is to look very closely at matters. The last time we discussed this we were in the middle of the crisis. That night, I stated that I was sick and tired of everyone in the House, on all sides, telling me that the banks were under-capitalised and that they were going to go under. I said that I had spoken to the only person who has looked at all the books and audits and he told me that they are okay. I spoke to the governor, with whom I had done business for 30 years while wearing other hats and who had never told me a lie, and he confirmed it. I said on 30 September that until someone proves otherwise, the banks were adequately capitalised for the moment, and that has proven to be the case. The Minister should make more of the fact that the Department of Finance and the regulator were correct and the politicians, the commentators and "Prime Time" were wrong. The next time the Minister and the regulator say something, people might be more inclined to listen.

I compliment the Government on not recapitalising the banks. It has been done twice in different ways in the US and it has been a disaster. It has been done twice in the UK and Alistair Darling is tearing his hair out wondering why he cannot control the banks. All he needs to do is to read company law and he will find out quickly.

In dealing with this issue I have asked every public servant I have met how we could save and become more efficient in his or her area. I asked them not to give me broad matters but to be specific. This morning, I tried to remember some of them and one ties into the Minister's comments on FÁS.

The Department of Education and Science builds schools sometimes, but not enough. Every Member of the House has raised this issue, as has the Minister and the Minister of State. Why is the Department of Education and Science building schools? Why do local authorities not build schools? I could not find one county development plan to which the so-called planning section in the Department of Education and Science made a contribution. Consequently, the Minister for Finance woke up one morning to find large numbers of houses and people in Dublin 15, in the middle of his constituency, but there were no schools. If the local authority, which deals with planning, also dealt with building schools, it would know the population and the drift. The local authority is the guardian of the county plan and money would be saved. This is a whole section that is unnecessary.

The Minister referred to FÁS. I met some teachers in further education and asked how we could save money. They said that in further education they were prepared to do their bit. I have an interesting point for those commenting on the public sector. They said that they could operate cheaper in the public sector. I asked them how and they promised to contact me when they had it calculated, which they did. They worked out the per capita costs of the privately contracted FÁS courses and outlined to me that a similar course being run in the further education section of the vocational education committees can do it cheaper and, one would have to accept, equally effectively. That is the type of issue we must examine. The positive aspect of that, and it is something I know the Minister of State will pick up on, is that it was the teachers in further education who offered to do that. That is important to what I will come to later.

I want to put three specific points to the Minister of State. First, in the Minister's own area of the arts, I will make a suggestion to him that will save €50 million with the stroke of a pen and one telephone call. In parts of the Minster's constituency people have satellite dishes to receive RTE. The only way someone can receive RTE with a satellite dish is if they are a Sky subscriber. There are people in the Minister's constituency who cannot get broadband. The most effective way of delivering broadband currently is through satellite. There are people in the Minister's constituency, and throughout the country, who subscribe to one of the satellite based broadband providers. The service is delivered directly into their living rooms but RTE use the same line. They can connect it to their televisions and get BBC 1, BBC 2, BBC 3 and BBC 4, ITV 1, ITV 2, ITV 3 and ITV 4 and a variety of other stations at no cost — they are free to air stations — except RTE. That is the arts issue dealt with.

Second, because people must subscribe to Sky to get RTE, they must have a contract with Sky for which they pay anything up to €70 a month. Hundreds of thousands of people are subscribing to Sky in this country. Because all of that money is paid to Sky, the Minister's Department has no involvement in regulating it in terms of its quality, content or whatever.

The third point, and I am glad the Minister of State is seated, is that hundreds of thousands of Sky customers are paying millions of euro per year to Sky. They pay VAT on those payments, up to €100 million a year, which is being paid to the United Kingdom treasury. Much of that is happening because RTE has a contract with Sky to provide only satellite content.

If the Minister raises this issue I can tell him what the response will be, and it has to do with copyright. The examples I gave concern people receiving broadband and other services on the line into an Irish address. It is not coming from outside the island. There are issues in that regard that need to be examined. Money could be saved by having Sky regulated in Ireland and making RTE more widely available. Also, groups like Ice Broadband and so on that provide WiFi services could supply RTE currently. That is another area on which we are losing out badly.

On the cost of tribunals, has the Committee of Public Accounts not proven that politicians can question and find out where the bodies are buried, so to speak, as cheaply as tribunals? Surely that would save hundreds of millions of euro. I could suggest ten different actions the Minister could take. I do not know about the people who will be involved in public sector reform but I can tell the Minister that when he goes back to his Department, and if he mentions the first suggestion I made before he came into the Chamber about getting rid of a building section, the walls will go up. There is no way he will get it done. We need somebody to make decisions but what happens in every case is that the first people to be considered are the front line workers — nurses, teachers, gardaí etc. That is easier because it is away from Departments.

I want to make a modest proposal. If all the schools and hospitals were closed down for a year, all gardaí put on a career break for a year and let crime, education and health go its own course, many people would get injured or killed and nurses and teachers would have no money but we would solve the economic problem. We have to start somewhere and recognise that there are some ludicrous proposals being made also.

On the medical cards issue, the Government created a wave of opposition to that proposal. In terms of all the areas the Government considered, simplicity has a factor in this respect. The scheme was costing the Government €640 per year per person. Why not offer some people the option of buying their way back into the scheme if that is what they want? Some people might decide it would be worth doing that. It is an option that might be considered rather than cutting back the scheme.

Senator MacSharry was absolutely right about the social and partnership model and, of all people, I have no doubt the Minister of State would recognise that. What is it all about? It is unfortunate that much of the discussion on social partnership in the other House in particular revolves around salary. The most threatening thing that can happen to anybody in leadership is when they answer the telephone and somebody tells them they want to share something with them. It is never money; it is always pain. It is always a problem. I recognised long ago that a problem shared is a problem doubled. I do not believe in the old wives' tale that a problem shared is a problem halved. A problem shared is usually a problem doubled because more people get involved in dealing with the problem and they each take ownership of it. That is the value of social partnership. The gain is shared in the good times but the pain is shared in the bad times. That is the way it must be.

The next time the Minister of State is asked about paying the salary increase he should tell a little story. The Government sat down with the public sector unions six months ago and told them it did not have the money and that something must be done about it. They finished up with an 11 month gain. If, at the end of that period, problems remain, the Government has a moral duty and an ethical responsibility to go back to the same people and say, "This is where we are now". It is not about making mad decisions about not paying something now. It must be honest with people, outline the position and deal with it.

A month ago I read about the irresponsible socialist commies in Aer Lingus who were going to close down the company and so on. We got pages of it stating there would be no flights at Christmas and so on. They put out to ballot the extraordinary proposal of redundancies, sackings, demotions, added responsibility and more productivity. I never thought it had a chance of being accepted but it was accepted. If this country is to find its saviour -I said this in another forum in the past few days — and the choice was between bankers or trade unions, we would have a much better chance of survival and saving the economy with the trade unions.

I do not have time to make all the points I wanted to make but I say to the officials in the Department of Finance that there is no rush in terms of recapitalising the banks until one question can be answered. I have this question for this country and the neighbouring one. If somebody can tell me how capitalisation leads to money being loaned to the corner shops, the small builder, the carpenter or whomever, I will support it. It is not a question of what the banks would like to do. It is what they are required to do under legislation. Their shareholders want capitalisation to be increased from what was 4% or 5% to 7%, 8% or 9%. That will take billions of euro and it is of no value to the country but what it will do, if we make the mistake of doing it, is benefit the share price, at least for a while. The share price makes no difference to the Minister or to me. Those of us who held shares have lost money but that is not what we are trying to achieve.

We should recognise that it is sentiment, confidence and optimism that drive the economy, not science, mathematics or academia. The Government should shape up, look straight into the camera now and again and tell us we can get through this. That will create a wave of optimism.