John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I do not intend to delay the meeting with questions because we have had a good exchange. Both parties have put forward a detailed narrative, which would concern anyone and should concern Members of this House. Deputy Michael McGrath's Bill, Deputy Pearse Doherty's Bill and the Bill, which the former Master of the High Court, Mr. Edmund Honohan, assisted in writing, have been torn to shreds by the vested interests in this State, including the political establishment. I find that extremely concerning. We do not seem to be able to reach a point where we can safely say to people we represent who are in mortgage difficulties that we can offer them the protection they need in their lives, including the human rights protections cited by Ms Barry.

In all of the exchanges we have here with banks, I think one fund appeared before us. The other funds have just refused to co-operate in any way with the banks. My question is to both parties. What can we do next to bring to the Oireachtas the true story of what is happening with the vulture funds and the courts and the steps that need to be taken, not in the future but now? What are the urgent steps that are required? At the previous meeting of this committee, I asked that we would look at the possibility of bringing all parties together, including those who have been affected, to get a clearer picture and have it properly exposed for everyone interested in this area or affected by what is happening. In the context of Deputy Doherty's Bill, it might be helpful if that piece of work was brought forward. We will take up Mr. Hall's invitation to visit the offices and see that. It is a step forward, but I would like to hear both witnesses tell me what we should do next. I am suggesting that a day could be devoted to people associated with this issue, who could come before this committee with clear specifics as to how they are affected, while others could tell us how best to address the issue. The Personal Insolvency Act was mentioned. I was interested in the point in Mr. Joyce's opening statement relating to the piece of the contract that says the loan could be sold on regardless and whether we could encourage someone to challenge that, which would deal with the retrospective argument they have about Deputy Doherty's Bill. What do the witnesses think we can do next to make something happen? What can we do to make the powers within this House and the Government take note that they are spinning a yarn or a downright lie when they say that the protections travel with the loan? What can we do to undermine that argument, cut through the fog, give people some sort of hope that we are doing something and try to do something as a committee with the Government?