Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Wednesday, 27 May 2015

Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform: Select Sub-Committee on Finance

Consumer Protection (Regulation of Credit Servicing Firms) Bill 2015: Committee Stage

5:15 pm

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

The Minister is failing to acknowledge the fundamental difference between a vulture fund and other credit institutions that operate on a longer term or permanent basis within the State.

As the Minister says, a bank or a building society might be subject to competitive pressures on interest rates because they will not wish to lose market share and they will want to enhance their brand reputation and so on. A vulture fund does not give a damn about any of those things. It is not in it for the long term. It is not in it to develop customer relations; it is in it to make money out of an investment. It might be true that at a particular point in time it suits a vulture fund to have a revenue stream coming in and therefore it will not push for repossession. But at other times a vulture fund might say, "The best way for us to maximise our profit, to get the best return on our investment, is just to move in on these people in every way we can, get the asset off them and make a whack load of cash out of it." That is the nature of these vulture funds and that is why they are called vulture funds. We need to recognise the difference. Furthermore, there is this more opaque line of responsibility via these credit financing or these credit service firms and the owners behind them, making it all the more difficult for the mortgage-holder. If we acknowledge those differences then we should have the most robust protections possible for the mortgage-holder and we should go for the maximum protection and powers for the State in dealing with these entities that have no loyalty to the customer nor to the jurisdiction, no loyalty other than to themselves to make as much money as possible. If we recognise that fact then we have to go for the most robust, comprehensive protections possible. That is the point of Deputy Tóibín's amendment and I would support it.

I will mention briefly that Deputy Naughten, who is unwell, had hoped to attend today to signal his intention to table an amendment to the effect that it should not be possible for any person to be forced out of his or her home by one of these credit-servicing companies unless that person has alternative accommodation. I wish to signal that I would support his amendment on Report Stage.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.