Arthur Spring (Kerry North-West Limerick, Labour) | Oireachtas source

It is wonderful to be back. I acknowledge the passing of Seamus Heaney who was a wonderful poet but also a peaceful patriot and a person many of us could look up to.

This is a welcome opportunity yet again. I thank Fianna Fáil for raising this matter in its Private Members' motion. As I have constantly said, there are two issues on which I will work tirelessly, namely, joblessness and the mortgage crisis that has been weighing so heavily on my generation.

Of the first two issues that need to be dealt with, the first is quite basic and I wish to bring it to the attention of the civil servants. It pertains to the fees prescribed by the Insolvency Service of Ireland under the statutory instrument passed on 30 August, the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 (Prescribed Fees) Regulations 2013. The third point on the charging of fees states, “The amount of €500 is prescribed as the fee payable for an application for a Protective Certificate in relation to a Personal Insolvency Arrangement”. The Minister needs to address this issue immediately. So many of the people I encounter daily do not have a bean to their name, not to mind €500 to seek the assistance of a personal insolvency broker. It is inappropriate and, despite what we heard from one leader of the Opposition this morning, the fee and the scaremongering to lead people into paying €5,000 to €7,000 are nonsense. It is also inappropriate that €500 is being sought from people who do not have it to their name.

There are a couple of problems that still need to be ironed out. We all have something to contribute and this is a welcome addition. I do not agree with the idea of a veto. I have examined best practice in Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain and Norway and a veto is not necessary as long as we have a position from where we can pressurise the banks. With Deputy Michael McGrath, I have concluded that any entity considering buying a bank will examine the mortgage book and engage in due diligence with a fine toothcomb. If the bank leaves a legacy whereby it does not have a solution, the book will be unsellable. Thus, the share price and value of the bank will be depreciated. Ultimately, the sole responsibility is to the institution, rather than the individual. As a public representative, I represent the individual.

Let me present a different angle. Using the BlackRock stress test, we identified a quantum of money that could be used for the purpose of recapitalising banks holding distressed mortgages. Every single bank should, on a pro rata basis, be made to draw down every single penny of the money available and more, if necessary. I realise it is a zero sum game and that comes back to the taxpayer. I insist that the model used be the tabular format that was used for mortgage interest relief in order that those who bought houses at the very height of the market would get preferential treatment. One would work backwards from there. This is important because different banks will treat people with different attitudes. For example, we have more influence on Allied Irish Banks and Permanent TSB as a result of the Government's shareholding. It is nothing I am proud of but it is there. We have a stakeholding of only 15% in Bank of Ireland. It has the ability, therefore, to apply a far more robust attitude to us. The last thing it wants to have is a contingent liability on its balance sheet such that it will have to write down more money for mortgages, thereby shrinking its profitability and compressing the share price once again. It is imperative that we get the banks to draw down and use every single penny identified to relieve my generation, get us out of this quagmire and allow us to be the people who drive the economy and society and help the old and the young. It is imperative that there be a definitive line in the sand. I do not want anybody to get a telephone call in 12 months demanding a chat and more money. I do not want such a call in five years time. I want a definitive solution, a line in the sand, to give people certainty.

I believe and know we are doing the right thing. There are very few people who will argue that the ability to move towards personal insolvency is a problem. However, the person insolvency broker is paid through the institution. The affected individual needs to go in with a robust attitude, put the keys on the table, tell the bank it has a problem on its balance sheet and ask what it proposes as a solution. The broker will not be paid the same amount of money if he or she gets a deal outside the personal insolvency route. It is in his or her interests, therefore, to go in with a softly-softly approach to get the job done; therefore, we need to incentivise him or her to enter the process with a robust attitude, enforcing the idea that it is the banks' problem, that they have money to solve it and that they need to enforce the solution.

International best practice indicates that 70% of cases are dealt with outside the insolvency arrangements allowed. We are also told that 90% of the remaining 30% of cases, amounting to 27%, are signed off on by both the bank and the borrower. This has the potential to be enormously successful. I encourage everybody to engage with the process and consult the website . People should engage with their Deputies and solicitors. They should not get into a position where they will be be held to ransom for money for a consultation. It is incumbent on the State to get my generation out of the problem. I have stressed this with the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and I have also gone to the Tánaiste. I will raise the matter with the Taoiseach. The Government should ensure the banks draw down every penny of the money allocated and pass it on in debt write-downs and providing relief. If we need more money, let us get more. This is one of the key issues for my generation. It is a matter of the liberation of my generation.

See this speech in context