Go raibh maith agat a Cheann Comhairle as cead a thabhairt dom an cheist seo a ardú inniu. The matter I am raising is the subject of a report in today's Irish Independent. There are a few basic points worth making about the TSB for the information of the House, the Minister, his officials, the trustees of the bank and the public. The trustees do not own the bank. Dating back to l863 their role has been administrative and supervisory. It is morally wrong for trustees so empowered to behave as if they were the freehold possessors of the title deeds to the bank. It is also wrong of the Minister and his Department to deal with the trustees as if they owned the bank, when they do not.
The Trustee Savings Bank was deliberately created by people, of like mind to what could be called the green constituency, who had vision and were sufficiently precient to ensure the bank belonged to no one so that eventualities like that discussed in this morning's papers would not arise.
Incidentally, it is fascinating that Tony O'Reilly's Irish Independent had that story this morning while The Irish Times which, not unlike the TSB, exists for reasons other than pure profit, did not. Is this another aspect of payback time?
The manner in which the Trustee Savings Bank was created dictates that, whatever legal provision may have been slipped into the Trustee Savings Bank Act, 1989, nobody has a moral right to effect the sale of the TSB and certainly not without first consulting its customers and clients.
Those most interested in pushing a sale will be those with most to gain in career and financial terms, but the sale of the TSB will serve no purpose that is beneficial to the community. Arguably, such a sale will not even benefit the Exchequer but, if anything, would be an unnecessary and unprofitable diminution of the net worth of the Irish State. There is no doubt that since 1989 the TSB has lost its way. As evidence of that, I adduce a recent statement by its chief executive suggesting that the TSB might involve itself in offering 30 year mortgages. This is a deceptively angled proposal because although at first glance it seems attractive in current circumstances, what it means is that if I can get a 30 year mortgage to purchase my first home, others will have to get one as well if there is to be competition on price. The result is a further ratcheting upwards of house prices, more turnover and greater profitability for the socially indifferent financial institutions and even more people excluded from the housing market.
For the TSB, in particular, to come up with such a profoundly anti-social proposition is shocking. I am not sure whether the Minister had time to study the economic theories of Mr. Adam Smith during his formative years or later in the course of the distinguished career that has seen him assume his present office. If he had, he would be aware that Adam Smith is regarded as the founder of the capitalist theory and that the Fianna Fáil Party has adopted this broad theoretical framework as its economic philosophy. He may be aware that central to Adam Smith's thinking was the idea of an invisible hand that guides things along towards the greater good in pure capitalist terms.
Has the Minister ever considered that the reason Adam Smith's invisible hand is invisible is because it does not exist? It seems it was scepticism, like my own, on the invisible hand of capitalism that informed the thinking that went into the creation of the Trustee Savings Bank. If, as the Minister, his party and Government partners seem to desire, the TSB and the ACC proceed to form a plc, it will have as its primary objective the maximisation of shareholder value and, according to that theory, the pursuit of that by those who will have a shareholding in the new company will produce social benefits, but I do not know about that. What it will produce is greater costs for TSB customers. It is clear both from this country and from the UK, after the decade of Thatcherite and post-Thatcherite demutualisation, that mutuals offer better terms to their customers and members.
Is it the Minister's party, or the junior partner in the coalition, that is most gung-ho about this proposal? If I was to put the theory of why I believe this move is coming about into an article it could well be entitled, "There is no such thing as society — there are only private interests" and that underlies the attitude to the TSB proposal.