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

Mr. Makhlouf is coming close enough to it. I will move a step further, if I might. On the much-disputed FDI, the European court's decision was not meant to be of benefit to Ireland's foreign direct investment. That is not speculation; it is a fact. It is hoped by some people across the globe that it will have a lasting impact of a negative nature. I happen to know about that as well. I was glad to see Michel Barnier come centre stage again in France. He is clearly a committed European. However, there are other influences as well. What is the remedy for that? For instance, we now have a theoretical 15% tax on corporation profits, which is supposed to be agreed across the OECD countries. I am not so sure that will happen, but the longer the speculation goes on about it, the less helpful it will be. Foreign direct investors get spooked very easily and will go to a place where they do not have to contend with this kind of nonsense. That is the danger. I put that forward as one issue.

I have a problem with the following issue. We are informed on a fairly regular basis by foreign bodies of various descriptions, including NGOs and people in the House, that we should increase taxation in a number of other areas to compensate for a drop in foreign direct investment. To my mind, that is contradictory. If we pile on more taxation in anticipation of a drop in taxation in one area, it will not do any good for foreign direct investment or the economy in general. It would bring two crises together with an impact on the economy that would be much worse than we can now anticipate. That is a statement on my part.

I will raise a couple of other issues. I mentioned the matter of state aid and the possibility of it taking over. Of course, in an economic context, we are a very small player in the international community when it comes to state aid. The European Union has been very strict in ensuring that it stamps out state aid, but it is not doing it. It is happening, for a variety of reasons.

The last issue I will bring to the witnesses' attention - they know about it already and I have raised it in the House - relates to the activities of vulture funds. They are having an impact on our economy that is not of a positive nature at present. They are in the housing market and the property market. There is a fund around now to purchase almost anything, which is in turn raising the selling and buying price. That is good for the seller but what is happening is vulture funds are coming between the seller and the potential buyer who would normally be expected to buy property, depriving that buyer of getting a house, home, property or whatever the case may be, and driving up the price. The game is being played at a different level. I have to say that I am concerned about it. I have had occasion in the past couple of weeks to exchange not so pleasant pleasantries with one vulture fund, which I found bullying vulnerable people in order to collect the debt that it bought. That fund is doing this and it needs to be investigated. I told that vulture fund I would raise the matter in the House, which I did. I named that fund in the House and told it I would pursue this again. It is licensed by the Central Bank. That licence should be questioned. In order to do so, we need to know what is happening.

It is being alleged, and it is serious, that the impaired loans that were bought, very often in a bundle, were bought at a fraction of their face value. There was a write-down by the original lending agency to the buyer.

What is happening next is that the buyer, that is, the new lender, has decided to put pressure on people and to force, as quickly and insofar as it can, the original borrower, real men doing real jobs, to pay the face value of the debt, plus increased interest in many cases. That is a non-runner. That is an obnoxious thing to have happen in a free and democratic country. While it may well work in other countries, it should not apply here. These vulture funds have an attitude that they will find a way around it. My answer to that is that I intend to bring individual cases to the attention of the Central Bank. I will name them all in the House. I have no difficulty doing that because this has to be brought under control. If the vulture funds want a simple resolution, why do they not come forward and say how much they paid for the loans? I am aware that could be morally hazardous and mean less of a profit for them. They are not entitled to extract debt in that fashion through threats and force, nor are they entitled to completely ignore, as happened in a number of cases, third-party representatives completely. They just by-pass them and put pressure on the individual. That is not on and should not be allowed to apply. I am asking the Central Bank to investigate this as a matter of urgency and to challenge them. I will name them and I will give the Central Bank the details. I am aware the Central Bank has been helpful in this area in the past. I am not criticising it at all, but rather I am alerting it to what is going on happen at the present time. Those are all my comments. It is now up to the Governor of the Central Bank.