I move:
That Seanad Éireann approves the following Order in draft:
Trustee (Authorised Investments) Order, 1992,
a copy of which Order in Draft was laid before the House on 30 January 1992.
Trustee (Authorised Investments) Order, 1992: Motion.
This draft order proposes to amend the list of investments in which trustees may invest funds under their control. The order is being made under the Trustee (Authorised Investments) Act, 1958. That legislation is designed to protect the beneficiaries of trusts by offering a range of suitable and prudent investments. A trust deed may, however, give wider powers of investment to the trustees, in which case the 1958 Act does not apply. Notwithstanding these limits on the operation of the 1958 Act, the legislation makes an important contribution in this area. We are all only too aware from recent controversies in the pensions area of how easily the rights of beneficiaries can be ignored and sometimes abused.
The 1958 Act itself sets out a list of investments, but under section 2 of the 1958 Act the Minister for Finance is empowered to amend the list of authorised investments by order. A draft of the order must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and a motion of approval passed by each House before the order can be signed. Approval of this order was given by the Dáil on 6 March 1992. I am now asking the House to agree to the proposed order.
I am obliged under the 1958 Act to consult a number of "referees" in regard to any proposed order to amend the list of investments. These referees are the Governor of the Central Bank, the Public Trustee, the President of the Irish Stock Exchange, the President of the Incorporated Law Society, the Chairman of the Irish Banks' Standing Committee and a judge of the High Court nominated by the President of the High Court. The referees have all been consulted and no objections have been raised to the terms of the present draft order.
The existing list is quite long and detailed and I can make copies available to the House if this is desired. The original series of investments set out in the Act has been amended by order 11 times. The typical investments authorised are gilt-edged securities, deposits with banks and building societies and certain unit trusts. This type of investment is very much the safe and secure sort, which is as it should be in the case of trust fund investments.
This draft order provides for the addition of three new investments to the list. The first of the proposed investments is interest-bearing deposit accounts with ABN AMRO Bank NV. ABN AMRO came into being last year as a result of the merger of the Netherlands' two largest banks, Algemene Bank Nederland NV and Amsterdam-Rotterdam Bank NV. ABN AMRO is the largest bank in the Netherlands and the sixth largest in Europe. ABN itself has been present in Ireland since 1972 through its subsidiary, ABN AMRO (Ireland) Limited. ABN has a majority stake in a local stockbroker and has established several companies in the IFSC.
The newly merged bank has been licensed by the Central Bank to operate a branch in Ireland. Certain parts of the business of the Irish subsidiary have been transferred to this branch. Interest bearing deposit accounts with the subsidiary already have trustee authorised status and ABN AMRO has asked for the same status to apply to interest bearing deposit accounts with the branch. The Central Bank supports the ABN AMRO request and I have no doubt that its inclusion on the list is warranted.
I propose also to add to the list Irish Life's Charité Unit Trust, Cash Fund and Fixed Interest Fund only, and the following three AIB Unit Trusts: (i) Allied Irish High Income Bond; (ii) Allied Irish Capital Growth Fund; and (iii) Allied Irish Charicash.
There are a number of unit trusts already on the list. The guidelines in these cases require that the unit trust should invest only in trustee authorised investments. Both Irish Life and AIB have given such undertakings.
I know it will be useful to the House if I outline how applications for inclusion on the list are dealt with in the Department. To enable individual applications to be assessed on objective grounds a set of criteria has been drawn up for unit trusts, banks, building societies and life assurance products. A unit trust seeking a listing must provide details of its legal financial and administrative arrangements in relation to the trust — for example, a copy of the deed of trust. In addition, it must be an authorised unit trust under the relevant UCITS or unit trust legislation and have been in operation for three years.
There are also several other detailed criteria as follows. The Minister, after consultation with the Central Bank, must be satisfied that the company has a satisfactory record of compliance with the supervisory requirements of the Central Bank. Further, the unit trust may only invest in Government securities and/or deposits placed with licensed banks or building societies. It must offer to buy back units from trustees at the quoted market rate and the criteria for admission to the list to be met on a continuing basis.
In the case of deposits with a bank or building society, the criteria also require that the bank or building society must be authorised to operate in Ireland and must have carried on business for at least three years. I also require the Central Bank to assure me that the bank or building society has complied with the Central Bank's prudential standards and requirements.
In relation to life assurance products, the applicant must supply specific information on the particular investment product to enable the Department to assess its suitability for listing. As before, the life assurance company must hold an authorisation to transact life assurance business in the State and must have been established and actively trading with the public for at least three years. A satisfactory record of compliance with the supervisory requirements of the Department of Industry and Commerce must also be shown.
In so far as particular financial criteria are concerned, the company must have assets of at least £50 million within the State and exceed by 50 per cent or more the EC minimum solvency margin requirements for life assurers. A certificate of solvency to this effect is required from the company.
The life assurance product should be based exclusively on Government securities or cash deposits with deposit taking institutions duly authorised and should have been on the market for at least three years preceding the application. The company must be committed to maintaining the product on the market for the foreseeable future and must continue to meet the criteria for listing on an ongoing basis.
These are strict requirements, and properly so. They are not excessive, however, in the light of the integrity and financial soundness which one would expect of any well established financial institution. I seek to apply the criteria in a reasonable manner. Thus, in applying the three year rule the Department will take into account whether the business is being transferred from one authorised firm to another. In this case it is reasonable to give credit for the period before the transfer in applying the three year rule.
I have gone into some detail in setting out these criteria so as to be helpful to applicants and to ensure as far as possible that there is seen to be a level playing field for each type of applicant. The criteria were drawn up after consultation with the Central Bank and the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
While the additions to the list concern specific institutions, the opportunity should not be allowed to pass without a mention of the financial sector generally. The financial services sector in Ireland has developed rapidly in the past few years and has now assumed a very important role to the Irish economy. The importance of the sector is reflected in the fact that 35,200 people are now employed in the area. The Government realise the importance of this sector and have tried to create the right conditions for it to flourish in, particularly with the advent of the Internal Market.
To meet the challenge of the Internal Market the Government have overhauled the legislation on banking, insurance, building societies and trustee saving banks. The purpose of the legislation is to liberalise and free the institutions and markets to help make them more responsive to compeitition. We are at present working on the regulations necessary to ensure the opening up of the Internal Market in banking from 1 January 1993.
A further tangible proof of the Government's commitment to this sector is the International Financial Services Centre. To date, some 190 projects have been approved with new jobs promised totalling over 2,800. All the main financial sectors are represented in the centre — banking, insurance, fund management, leasing, unit trusts, etc. Dublin has become a recognised financial centre of repute providing good quality financial services. This reputation has a beneficial spin-off effect on all domestic financial institutions when it comes to competing in world markets.
I am convinced that the financial services sector can respond to the challenge of the Internal Market. However, domestic institutions must not ignore the home market. The EUROPEN report published in 1990 identified two important areas for success, that is, controlling costs and developing new products to meet competition. I am encouraged by the moves made by particular firms to gear up to meet the new compeitition. In the final analysis, it is up to the individual firm to chart its own course through 1992 and beyond.
Service to the customer must be an essential feature of any such chart. I have no doubt that in the case of trustees the products and deposit accounts being added to the list will prove their customer worth and, accordingly, I recommend the order to the House.
I can see no reason we should oppose the order before us. It is a technical motion and I suspect very much an in-house issue within the financial institutions and the Department. I welcome the Minister to the House and the case he has outlined for support for the motion today.
Not wishing to nit-pick, the Minister left out a paragraph of the script he supplied to us. I am sure there was nothing sinister in that but, for the record, he may like to include it in his reply; it was the second paragraph on the fourth page of his script. I assume we can take as said the information contained therein.
The Minister explained in detail the case before us. It is not for me to object to or question in any way whether ABN AMRO, the Irish Life's Charité Unit Trust, Cash Fund and Fixed Interest Fund and the three AIB unit trusts, namely, Allied Irish High Income Bond, the Allied Irish Capital Growth Fund or the Allied Irish Charicash Fund, should or should not be included. I assume from what the Minister said that the referees have all been consulted and raised no objections and their certificates of solvency have to be in order, therefore, we cannot but welcome the extension of the guaranteed service to the customer in this area. I would be interested to know how many financial institutions, unit trusts or whatever have applied for cover under this specific area and been refused and if so, why? There are six or so named before in the Order before us, but how many were left off? Were there any the referees considered should not be included in the draft Order? Were there any where the certificates of solvency did not meet the stringent requirements I imagine are required by the Central Bank and the Department? Perhaps the Minister would indicate if there was a downside to applicants in this area because we could learn from this and it would also underline the strengths of those institutions that are on the list.
The Minister referred to the recent controversy in the pension area and how easily the rights of beneficiaries can be ignored and abused. Perhaps he could develop his thinking on this as it is an area which has caused concern for a long time. In the United Kingdom, there have been cases of blatant abuse of pensioner rights and the pension funds have been switched from their original intention. Will the Minister indicate what precautions are being taken in this area, given the examples that have underlined problems that can exist and say whether this could happen here? Is further legislation planned to tighten up this area? Given that people work all their lives and maybe put a little aside for their old age and retirement, often to fund their own pension schemes, it is essential that we allay any fears that may exist in his area. We must remember that it is very difficult to save today because of the cost of living. Perhaps the public need to be made more aware of safe investments and need to be given advice in a language that they understand. The technical language used in the financial investment field is intimidating to the average person, and even reasonably well educated people do not understand precisely what is involved or cannot make their way through the field of financial investments without very expensive and sophisticated advice. I would be interested to know the Minister's views on the recent controversies and on what still needs to be done to tighten up this area to protect pensioners' investments and pension funds generally.
I welcome ABN AMRO's inclusion on this list given that they are a major European bank and the largest in the Netherlands. They have invested considerably in this country over the last two decades. The question might be why it took so long for them to be included. Obviously their request only come to hand reasonably recently because I can see no reason they would not have been included before now if they had wished. They are major investors in Riada and Company, Stockbrokers, and have committed themselves to Ireland and financial investment here in a big way; this is but a further extension to their bow.
The Minister referred to working on the regulations necessary to ensure the opening up of the Internal Market in banking from 1 January, 1993, compliance with the Single Market and the various directives and regulations in this area.
Interestingly, as we watch the spectacle of the banks dispute develop — and I hope it will not escalate — one wonders what work is being done at the directors' tables for 1 January 1993 and the Single Market and whether the Minister has any concerns about the banks' ability to comply with whatever requirements will be upon them once the Single Market is with us. I would be very interested to hear the Minister's views on whether the present industrial relations difficulties in the banking system will cause them any problems complying with the 1 January, 1993 deadline and if he is satisfied that the work done to date by the banking and financial institutions will allow them to meet the deadline on the various Euro requirements to comply with Single Market regulations and directives.
This is a very important area and, because of other difficulties in the banking system, one we should not lose sight of. As the so-called abortion controversy is distracting from the real issue of the Maastricht Treaty, I would hate the difficulties in the banking system to distract from the real job the banks have to do to comply with the deadline.
We are happy to support the motion before us and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
I join with the Senator in welcoming this order and give it my support. It is very important that this type of legislation is provided to protect investors by offering as wide a range of investments as possible. I agree with Senator Doyle's remarks in relation to pension funds and the difficulties experienced by people, particularly the ordinary man and woman in the street who may have a few pounds to invest and who do not quite understand the mechanics of the Stock Exchange, investments and so on. They rely to a large extent on professional people to do the job for them and in relation to unit trusts this is extremely important.
The people I am most concerned about are those with small amounts of money to invest. They try to ensure they spread their investments as widely as possible. Understandably the unit trust is a very important mechanism in this regard. They rely to a large extent on professional advice and the workings of professionals in that area.
It is important that people have as many facilities and opportunities as possible to invest. It is understandable that where a range of financial services are developed the scope for greater risk-taking is extended. We must guard against the wider opportunities for individuals to misappropriate funds in one way or the other. I agree with what Senator Doyle said in relation to pension funds and that people participate in superannuation and pension fund schemes in good faith. They think that money is being properly invested and they will have fairly good pensions when they retire. Experience in Britain, and in this country on a few occasions, has shown that, in some circumstances, that is not the case. Given the opening up of the EC in terms of financial services and investments, it is an area to which we must pay special attention.
We must protect the rights of small investors — people who think their pension funds are being looked after or small investors who have money to invest — with every means at the disposal of the Minister and the State. We have seen examples on television particularly in relation to the problems of the Maxwell group in Britain where huge sums of money were misappropriated and it was the small saver who was hurt most. We must ensure that this does not occur in this country.
In his speech the Minister stated that the financial sector has opened up in terms of banking, insurance, building societies and so on in preparation for full integration into Europe. That is extremely important. We must give our banks and unit trusts the opportunity to compete with the competition from Europe in the years ahead. I join with the Minister in complimenting developments in the Financial Services Centre. This is a very successful development. There are 190 projects in operation which have resulted in a number of jobs being created and there is the possibility of more projects locating there with a consequent increase in the numbers of jobs in the area. All that is to be welcomed. It is recognised at this stage that in terms of our economic development, it is in the services sector that there is the most opportunity for job creation. Anything that can be done to improve that is to be welcomed.
I compliment the Minister on bringing this order before the House and wish him well in the future.
I welcome the Minister to the House and congratulate him on bringing such non-controversial legislation before us today which he felt would go through on the nod. I do not intend to make life difficult for him, or indeed make it particularly easy for him, but of course this order should be supported, and has been supported, by all sides of the House.
The Minister gave us an opportunity to mention the Financial Services Centre and I will make one or two comments on that. This order is part of the ongoing procedure and legislation which is intended to reassure investors and give them protection and maximum security in areas such as trustee investments. I do not think there should be any quarrel with what the Minister has authorised in this order, particularly in the case of ABN AMRO which as Senator Doyle quite rightly said, has a large vested interest in this country and which has had the confidence and the courage not only to invest a lot of money in this country by setting up a subsidiary but also to invest in a large and successful stockbroking firm here. What the Minister is doing by authorising interest-bearing deposit accounts with ABN AMRO is recognising the stake they have here and the security of that stake. He is also internationalising the trustee investments which are available to trustees in this country and I welcome that.
I assume it is appropriate to talk about the criteria that are applied to these trustee investments. I am not quite so sure the presumptions on which they are based are as safe as the Minister would like to think. I am not even sure that Government stocks are quite as safe as the Minister would make out. They are as safe as one can get but it is appropriate to remind the House that Allied Irish Banks had a serious crisis some years ago and that the Insurance Corporation of Ireland in terms of the life assurance industry also had a serious crisis some years ago. Both those companies would easily fulfil the criteria spelled out by the Minister today. In other words, we have a requirement that they should be in business for three years and have capital of £2.5 million. While those companies would have satisfied the criteria and any investments in deposits in them might have been in danger at that time.
What I suggest perhaps it might be more appropriate and the Minister might take it on board — is that there might be a suggestion that the spread of investments in unit trusts should be wider than that mentioned in the Minister's statement. He says they must be in cash or gilts. While they sound safe, if the money in these funds is invested in one interest-bearing deposit in one bank which is suspect, presumably the trust itself can go down as well because the criteria set for the banks are not strict enough. The Minister might think of requiring these trusts to spread their investments more widely rather than allow them to put them into one single investment because if that investment goes down or that safe area is in danger, the whole trust could be in danger. I would have thought it more appropriate to have a spread of investments.
I should like to take the Minister up on one or two things he had to say about the Financial Services Centre in general. I suppose it is inevitable that the Minister would pat himself and the Government on the back about the financial services sector. It is not strictly relevant to this order, but I know the Chair will give me the same latitude as he gave to the Minister.
I do not share the Minister's satisfaction with the financial services sector. I note the continuous assertion of the IDA, the Government and their spokespersons that not only is the financial services sector here flourishing but the Financial Services Centre is flourishing. I do not, quite honestly, believe that statement stands up to scrutiny. It is based on the fact that if it is stated often enough and if there are enough buildings and physical activity at the Customs House Dock, people will believe that this construction and enterprise has been successful. I suggest to the Minister, in the humblest possible terms, that the Financial Services Centre, judged by the targets set for it in the Fianna Fáil manifesto in 1987 and by the Government when they took office, far from being a success, is a failure.
The assertion that it is successful is dubious because the Financial Services Centre, as I understood it, was set up to attract a large number of major multinationals to Ireland. It has turned out to be more a tax haven than a productive centre. The targets set for employment which was the raison d'être of the Financial Services Centre have not been met. It depends on who one listened to at the time whether the targets set for employment were 8,000 or 11,000 and it depends on how enthusiastic people were at the time about the centre. However, the targets have not been met; we are now five years down the road and they are far from being met. Anybody who examines the Financial Services Centre will see that the quality of the financial services companies which have set up there, far from being large multinationals putting down an anchor or a headquarters in Dublin, are nearly all very small subsidiaries of large or small institutions.
One of the great failures of the Financial Services Centre is that not only have the employment targets not been met but it is very doubtful whether many of the jobs which exist there are new jobs. What happened, as the Minister well knows, was that the Bank of Ireland and Allied Irish Banks moved into it at first in order to take up the space which was being provided and in order to encourage others to come in there. They relocated a great number of their operations across the Liffey, they received tax concessions in return and they simply re-employed people in the centre whom they had employed in Ballsbridge and elsewhere.
These two operations are, by far, the largest in the Financial Services Centre and the operations coming in from abroad are very small, and what are euphemistically called niche operations settled there. The numbers employed by these operations from abroad are nearly all in single figures — six people, seven people, nine people and only one or two employ between 12 and 20 people. The number of Irish people they employ is even smaller because many of these operations bring in their own employees. The employment figures are very optimistic. I suggest they employ mostly people from overseas and, unfortunately, do not offer new jobs.
One of the strange things about the Financial Services Centre — maybe the Minister could comment on this — is that it is now being filled with solicitors and accountants. I cannot understand the reason good, professional companies, like McCann Fitzgerald, Arthur Andersen and others, have been encouraged or allowed to relocate in the Financial Services Centre. It may be that the space is simply not being taken up but it seems that these companies are now making use of tax rebates and allowances which were not intended for them or for any similar operations. I suppose the reason for it is that the space must be taken up in order to make the centre a success and, as a result, solicitors and accountants are now permitted to locate where they were not meant to locate in the first instance.
I suggest that any note of self-congratulation on the Financial Services Centre should not be uncritically accepted by the public, by the financial services sector or by anybody else. The targets of employment are far from being met. Those who moved there in the first instance received tax concessions. There is no anchor tenant, major multinational financial company or bank from abroad locating there except in a very small way. What we need is a critical and realistic assessment of the Financial Services Centre from the Governemnt rather than the sort of self-congratulation we get day in, day out, in the newspapers, in the Seanad and in the Dáil.
This order, as far as it goes, is welcome. It is lacking in information. As Senator Doyle said it would be interesting to know how this bank was singled out for authorisation. It would be interesting to know if anybody has been refused authorisation. I would like to see the list the Minister promised of authorised investments, if he could make it available to us.
I thank Senators who participated in this short debate for their work and comments. Senator Doyle asked me about pensions funds. It might be worth mentioning briefly the current EC directive on the pensions funds. It is a broader issue than trustee authorised investments because pensions funds do not usually limit themselves to trustee investments. While the focus is very much on deregulation and removal of national restrictions in line with the standard Community approach of liberalisation, there is a prudential code to ensure that funds are managed in the appropriate manner and there is no major accumulation of risk. The importance of security is recognised. In view of the variety of regulations in individual member countries it will be an achievement to make progress, however modest, in the harmonisation of pension fund legislation.
One topical provision of the draft directive is the proposed rule of self-investments of pension funds and the difficulties that have arisen. There are clear dangers associated with imprudent self-investment by pension trustees in the parent and affiliated companies of the employees. This has happened in a number of cases. In the use of pension funds to invest in worthwhile enterprises, even the parent company can help stimulate economic development, but the bottom line must always be the interests of beneficiaries.
The Minister for Social Welfare, with my consent, recently introduced regulations under the Pensions Act and these provide that any self-investment or concentration of investment in excess of 20 per cent of the assets of a fund is not taken into account for the purpose of certifying the adequacy of the assets under the minimum funding standard. These regulations will enhance the security of members' rights. I agree with Senator Doyle's concern to close any loopholes on this matter. These regulations are a further step in the Government's commitment to provide a proper regulatory framework for the protection of employees, which together with a number of aspects of the regulation of these issues concern me. I spoke recently on other essential aspects of regulation and regulatory controls. I agree with Senator Ross that in these matters one can never be sure that one is totally up to date or in possession of the best regulations and expertise. I would never say that we should spot examining these matters.
On the new bank regulations, I am satisfied that the banks will be able to meet the EC regulations; they already comply with EC directives on own funds and insolvency ratios. However, it is up to the banks to lay their own corporate plans. We have seen the building societies gear up with new products and expert staff and with new links with other providers of financial services in the state; the banks, presumably, will do likewise.
Referring to Senator Ross' point on the criterion of safety, there are degrees of safety in different types of financial investments. I try to aim for the highest standards and I accept the point that improvements are always possible. As regards the restriction of Government gilts and interest bearing deposits, I take the point on the spread of investments. However, a deposit guarantee scheme for banks and building societies deposits exists, albeit with a maximum of £10,000.
To clarify the point regarding Ambro Ltd., which Senator Doyle made, it is a subsidiary of ABN AMRO and that has trustee status. The purpose of their inclusion today is to include the interest bearing deposit associated with the new branch formed, that is the ABN AMRO Bank.
I agree with Senator Doyle's comments on the technical jargon used by the insurance industry. I have been battling with that myself in recent months, having been away from the phraseology for a few years and there are some aspects I have never been involved in. The insurance industry has tried to write its policies in clearer English and I will consider what might be done on the broader front.
There are a number of applicants involving equities, equity funds and unit linked funds being considered at present. I do not wish to name any. Normally when they are refused it is for a period of three years. That would only be applied if they do not comply with the three year rule. The referees would not usually object but may raise questions to be followed up with the applicant. That is the normal procedure.
The supervision of pension funds and the Pensions Board are being dealt with by the Minister for Social Welfare. On the question of the Financial Services Centre and Senator Ross' comments, I was merely making the point that much employment is provided there; the figure of 35,000 is in my script. It is a substantial employer. We often hear more about other sectoral interests that employ less than that number of people. I am sure Senator Ross claims some success over the years for being part of that growing industry.
I have left it.
Senator Ross was there during the process of developing it through the difficult years. The centre is a substantial employer not just in the financial services sector, and by and large the jobs are sustainable, which we can all feel satisfied about. In regard to the centre, I suppose in five years one would like to see greater progress but I remember being down there in Christmas 1987 when the first hole in the ground had been made so it is less than four years since the first people moved in.
In my capacity as Minister for Finance in recent times I have had the pleasure of seeing AIB and the Bank of Ireland move in; Andersen House has taken over a whole block and a total of 190 projects have signed up for accommodation. Many of these are small and many institutions have moved to this country for the first time. The companies involved in the recent controversy were all new to the country.
I met a number of deputations, many of whose members were non-Irish but many of their staff were Irish and a considerable number of young graduates have been recruited in the past 18 months or so. Figures were supplied by the various deputations on Irish Employees. A few companies were engaged in some controversy with the German revenue authorities. Other companies have expanded by a small fraction but the 190 institutions there is a significant number. There are plans now to continue the centre's development and I have certain concerns there; the centre is a new concept and like a new company, it would be unreasonable to assess its future on the basis of three year's achievement. I am concerned that all of the people who have signed up are not yet located in the centre——
Are those new or relocated jobs?
It is difficult to know and I agree here with Senator Ross. Some 2,800 jobs have been promised, the vast majority of which are meant to be new. I asked about the proportion of new jobs on a recent visit to Andersen's House but I did not get a precise figure. I know from my recent visits there that most senior and junior staff would not have been working with their present company three years ago; it would be fair to take as a base the start of building on the Financial Services Centre if we are to judge how long these people have been there. I recently met the executives of AIB there and only two of the eight were there two years ago; maybe they brought out the new people only but I do not believe that.
I had talks with the Ulster Bank in recent days — they are opening new offices in the centre — and the vast majority of their staff are new. By and large, the senior staff of a number of these companies will have been brought from other locations to develop the new service.
I agree with Senator Ross that the projections outlined at the start of the project have not been achieved. Those of us with some say in these matters must continue to see its development pursued actively, that the various companies which have signed up must come on site, and that their activities hold credibility worldwide. The centre must be promoted positively and observe criteria that will satisfy the international finance community. I agree with Senator Ross that we must ensure proper development or in five years we may run into difficulties. It behoves me as Minister for Finance to encourage its development and I believe it needs a push to achieve that.
We have heard much about the erection of the next buildings and about the completion of other buildings and employment of people on site, and I have spent some time in the last two weeks trying to pursue these matters to a conclusion. If people operating there do not locate themselves on site — this is outside the spirit of the centre and possibly contravenes the legal provisions governing the centre — the Financial Services Centre will not proceed as planned.
Senator Doyle asked about the banks dispute. Senators will be aware that the banks situation is in the balance and it would not help to go into detailed discussion at this time. Suffice to say that I hope both sides will come to an agreement. The Minister for Labour and I, from my own side, have been monitoring the position. The economy is not as dependent — as I said recently in the Dáil while standing in for the Minister for Labour — on the associated banks as it was during the strikes of 1970 and 1976, but a prolonged dispute could still have unwelcome economic effects and I hope normal services will be resumed following agreement wihin the normal industrial relations channels.
Have any applicants been refused?
When applicants are refused by referees they are normally put on hold for three years during which time they move to regulate whatever aspects they were refused on. A number of institutions would now be on hold for one reason or another but it would be invidious of me to mention their names or anything about them. Referees, rather than giving outright refusals, allow applicants three years to comply with the requirements.
I thank the Senators who participated in this debate for their co-operation in the speedy passage of this order and I appreciate their support.
Question put and agreed to.