Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

While the Minister said the scheme was envisaged to run over different periods, that is not my understanding. Banks have forced men to take shorter terms than they wanted. I know of numerous people who wanted a six-year term but this has reduced to four, three or even two years in some cases. The farmers saw the availability of cheap credit over a period and believed it would ease cashflow problems to pay the money over as long a period as the scheme allowed. I cannot understand why the banks have done this. The scheme was designed to be a six-year scheme with, as has been said, an option that the first three years would be interest-only, if the client so desired, although, like Deputy Penrose, I do not think that was such a good idea. I do not understand why the banks have forced customers to take shorter terms than were envisaged under the scheme. The scheme was to ease a farmer's cashflow and help him to get back on the rails when he was under pressure to clear current debt levels. I would like the banks to explain why they have refused clients who wanted a six-year term and forced them to go for a significantly shorter term.