Seanad debates

Tuesday, 30 March 2010

2:30 pm

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)

We often talk about historic days. This is probably the most historic day I can remember in terms of the life and economic future of the country. I have just been looking at an article in The Irish Times of 19 March by Professor Brian Lucey in which he said the recently revealed figures could only have been written by Pollyanna. He said:

Despite admitting that it expects a 30-per-cent-plus discount on assets to be transferred to NAMA, AIB actually booked provisions less than half that. Expect much the same to come from the other banks.

That is what we have now. The Bank of Ireland has a cynical and dishonest policy of under declaring its liabilities and bank loans. It reduced its NAMA bad loans listing from €16 billion to €12 billion. Anybody looking at the situation would realise the liabilities are greater rather than less. Why did the bank do this? It did it because if the liability of €16 billion was accepted, it would wipe out the shareholder funds and it wants to avoid majority takeover by the State. However, what we are getting is nationalisation by dribs and drabs. That is the way we are going, but the bank continues to be acutely dishonest and not face reality. Some of the things the bank is doing, such as selling its profitable overseas investments, may appear to be a good idea in the short term, but doing this reduces the viability of the bank and leaves it to be carried exclusively by the taxpayer. I am very concerned. This is a historic day, but I hope it will not be a black day.

The final matter to which I wish to refer is the report of the Law Reform Commission. Its recommendations will have a number of important repercussions for the work of the House. My extremely hard working secretary who works a great deal of overtime for which she is never properly compensated by the State was recently called for jury service, which is inappropriate. In view of the inadequate nature of the backup services available to us, as parliamentarians, it is not appropriate to remove the very important support we receive from the secretarial and other staff of the Houses. I welcome the fact that the Law Reform Commission has recommended a series of new exemptions from jury service and that the staff of the Houses are covered thereunder. The level of support available to us is insufficient and it should not be further weakened as a result of people being called for jury duty, regardless of how essential and important the latter may be to the functioning of the justice system.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.