Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I am always somewhat wary when I see a Bill arriving in this House with the words "miscellaneous provisions" contained in the title. It tends to be an amalgam of different issues, some merely technical, but usually with a little nugget of something more controversial buried within it. We have had several Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bills which have had some rather dangerous provisions buried within them. I am reminded of a phrase used by a British political adviser about a good day to bury bad news. A miscellaneous provisions Bill is a good way to bury bad laws in some cases. I am not necessarily saying that is so in this case. However, it is always unfortunate to have a range of different issues bundled together in one Bill.

Having said that, I welcome Part 3. The provisions providing transfer of assets of certain pension funds to the National Pensions Reserve Fund are welcome. Regarding the university pension funds in particular, as one of the university Senators we had a very useful briefing from representatives of the universities about the provisions of Part 3 which we understand gives statutory form to an implicit State guarantee that already existed. I am grateful to the Irish Federation of University Teachers, IFUT, which also briefed us on the matter. Senator Norris and I attended the IFUT annual general meeting in Trinity College last week during which the matter of the Bill was raised. The provisions of Part 3 are welcome not only as they apply to the pensions of the five old universities but also to certain named non-commercial State bodies.

I want to focus on the provisions of section 17 and the extension of the guarantee that was passed by these two Houses in September. I voted against the Bill that provided for the blanket guarantee because I was wary of the nature of a blanket guarantee extending to cover what the dogs on the street knew to be a range of bad debts in particular banks, notably Anglo Irish Bank. Events have subsequently proved right those of us who were wary and concerned about the prospect of giving a blanket guarantee to all banks, in particular Anglo Irish Bank but also other banks with shabby practices that have since come to light. It would have been very dangerous to give the Minister any open-ended power to extend the period of the guarantee. Although the Bill provides for an extension to the blanket guarantee, I am glad there are oversight mechanisms as stressed by the Minister of State. Notably the Minister must secure the positive approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas were he to extend the term of the scheme. However, I reiterate that I am concerned about the blanket guarantee.

I am not sure whether the Minister of State has ever attended a "Leviathan Political Cabaret". While economics is not usually the subject of light entertainment, the Minister for Transport, Deputy Dempsey, attended the "Leviathan Political Cabaret" last night. It was chaired by David McWilliams who has been one of the economists to argue against the nationalisation of Anglo Irish Bank and for letting it go. Senator Ross has already mentioned the idea of letting go banks that are not of systemic importance. Last night I was very persuaded by David McWilliams's argument that Anglo Irish Bank could have been let go because it is not of systemic importance. I would like to hear the views on the Minister of State on this. The stakeholders in Anglo Irish Bank, the pension funds, would have been covered against losses and the main debtors were, as we now know, a mere handful of large developers. What would have been the risk in letting Anglo Irish Bank go? Why have we simply nationalised the worst of the bad banks? Why do we not instead consider temporary nationalisation of the banks that are of systemic importance to us as ordinary taxpayers?