Minister's excuses are no comfort for PMS savers
22 December 2010
Statement by TUV Leader Jim Allister:-
“Arlene Foster’s lengthy article in today’s News Letter will come as a disappointment to many PMS savers, who are long past needing mere sympathy.
“An apology from DETI for the regulatory gap which allowed the PMS crisis to develop would have been a better start for the Minister, but instead we got endless spin to divert attention from two years of feet-dragging.
“In fact the article heralds further lengthy delay. The careful reader will have observed that new legislation now has to be passed by the Assembly and that it hasn’t even yet been approved by the Executive! Unfortunately, the Minister didn’t give us a timeframe, but given the normal pace at which legislation goes through Stormont, it will not be a quick process. Can it be done before this Assembly is dissolved in March? I doubt it.
“Then, the Minister raises the spectre, or is it the diversion, of protracted EU approval taking ‘a number of months’, with no explanation as to why the existing fast-track for banking rescues cannot be used, nor an explanation as to why ‘state aid’ is an issue in circumstances where the rescue package has a nil impact on competitiveness, the touchstone for determining if state aid approval is even necessary.
“As for the process with Brussels only having begun this week, this is inexcusable, not least since Peter Robinson assured the Assembly as long ago as 26th April 2010 that officials were moving to clear the state aid issues. Yet, now, Minister Foster claims nothing could be done till the belated budget was approved! Nonsense.
“A further disturbing aspect of the Minister’s article is that she has now moved from pursuit of pound for pound recovery, as promised by David Cameron, to talk of the smaller savers getting “almost all of their money back”. What’s next in this softening up process? Why, considering Westminster says Stormont was given all it asked for, is the rescue package deficient? Why did Stormont not seek enough to give the parity of pound for pound recovery to PMS savers? Minister Foster answers none of these questions.
“Nor, does she cast any light on why the Executive’s £25m, which she insists on calling a ‘contribution’, is being described as a loan by her colleague the Finance Minister and why it should have to be repaid, and particularly why its repayment, and that of the £175m loan, should have priority over balance monies due to savers after eventual disposal of the assets?
“As PMS savers face their third Christmas without their money, a Minister, making excuses for the inordinate delay to date and anticipating even further lengthy delay, brings little comfort, adding to the perception of many that in handling the PMS crisis this Executive has been out of its depth.”
