Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I have raised a couple of issues with the banks before, including one relating to the availability of an ATM in the Houses of the Oireachtas. I received various reasons as to why it was not possible. I do not accept those reasons. Almost every small business in the country has the convenience of an ATM machine. When one asks what it is there for, one is told that it is for convenience of customers. When the ATM was removed from Leinster House, it was done on the grounds that money was not being made or was being lost, that the administration had changed or that the banks were no longer doing it. Whatever way the banks are operating, given the relationship between the banks and the Oireachtas in recent the past number of years, if I were them, I would make some effort to restore the ATM machine in question. It was a snub to remove it at the time it was done, during the lockdown, and to base the condition for its removal on the fact that it was used very little. I find that difficult enough to believe, because of the representations I have received from Oireachtas Members and staff in particular. I ask that the matter be raised again as soon as possible.

I wish to raise other issues on which the committee has engaged before, including the transfer of accounts between banks. I do not want answers today, particularly if the they are not available, but I will insist on written answers. The transfer to other financial institutions was found to be cumbersome. It was allegedly a simple provision, which not everyone agrees with. It was not simple or easy; it proved difficult for many people. I would have thought that an electronic transfer between the outgoing banks and the incoming banks would have been simple to organise, on a national basis, and that it would have alleviated considerable anxiety and worry for customers and been of great benefit.

In the course of what I have heard from constituents in recent times, I have noticed that some long-standing customers had overdrafts, which were sometimes used, but that no provision was made for these to remain in place after the transfer. Instead, there was a provision for credit cards. Of course, we all know the difference between the two. One entails an interest rate of whatever the nominal interest rate is and the other entails a fairly hefty rate. I ask that the banks come back to the committee with a view to resolving the issue of equal treatment on the transfer of business interests.

There are a number of issues relating to the people who have lost out. Deputy Doherty referred to the individuals who lost out and lost their homes. I am sure that all Members of the Houses have done their level best to make sure that did not happen. They have lost some. We possibly lost some. We held and still hold some. The fact of the matter is that it is very easy for a lending institution to come along and tell someone that he or she is in debt and has broken the agreement and that his or her loan is no longer sustainable, but the Irish people rescued the banking system here. The Government, on behalf of the Irish people, rescued and paid for the banking system. The banks did not lose anything, except their good name or whatever kind of name they had at the time. We have not gone away and nor are we likely to.

I pay tribute to the lending institutions that have dealt sympathetically with customers. I cast a wary eye on those that did not. We will need to continue to monitor the situation. I do not want an immediate response, unless somebody decides to give an administrative response, but I want a response in writing within the next two to three weeks, before the Dáil goes into recess.