Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair. When I listened to what the witnesses had to say about the use of computers, it struck me that the comedy "Little Britain" was prescient when it depicted a customer being given the response "computer says no" regardless of what he or she asked. That seems more or less to sum up what the banks are at. I have to say that the bleak picture which has been painted by the witnesses is reflected in my clinic daily when I hear from people who are in dire straits. One of the worst aspects of all of this is that people are threatened with homelessness.

I do not know whether the witnesses would like to comment on a point that should be made. I recently asked my local authority how much it costs weekly to look after someone who is homeless. I was told it costs approximately €800 a week, which means the State has to pay approximately €3,200 a month to look after a homeless person. Given that this is probably a fraction of the monthly mortgage repayment someone might be required to make, it is clear we are getting screwed. I refer not only to those who are in danger of homelessness because of the activities of the banks, but also to the State and the public finances, which are screwed when repossessions take place.

The witnesses seem to be saying that the banks will act as banks do by taking the fastest and most direct route to get money. If that means repossessing people's houses, that is what they will do. There is an onus on the Government to change this. I would like the witnesses to set out specifically what the Government needs to do in that context. Most ordinary people are wondering how the hell we can let the banks, which we bailed out, act as a law unto themselves to the detriment of mortgage holders and society as a whole. Can the witnesses specify what they want the Government to tell the banks to do and how this should be done?

Do the witnesses agree that unless someone refuses point blank to engage in any shape or form, the State should not allow repossessions to take place? This is the proper approach for financial reasons and for humanitarian reasons of basic human decency. No other approach makes any sense, as it will put people out on the street and we will have to pick up the bill. Do the witnesses agree that the approach I have set out should be written clearly into the guidelines? Do they agree that all this is simply about the bank veto, about which many of us kicked up at the time? If this problem is to be sorted out, the bank veto must be removed from the insolvency legislation.