Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

There are people already in danger of losing their houses. We have been talking about this Bill as if it were imposed on us by global events and no other factors were at play. Reckless lending is also a factor. I had a case recently of a young couple who, when they signed for a 100% mortgage, were invited to subscribe for a loan for a car. My colleague, Deputy Jack Wall, instanced at a parliamentary party meeting today a number of live cases of threatened repossessions. The community welfare officer believes he has a statutory obligation to ask for the original loan contract. If that document shows any imperfection, such as the customary practice, whether we like to admit it or not, of puffing up income for the purposes of securing a loan, the community welfare officer may offer no assistance on the mortgage repayments. That means repossessions are, inevitably, piling up. If and when these sections are invoked it is an entirely reasonable proposition for the banks concerned to be required to make an appropriate contribution to support the calls because, unfortunately, they will be invoked more and more in the months ahead.

I invite the Minister again to talk about financial support. A definition was given earlier and we were curious as to why it was widened but this section gives the Minister the opportunity to deal with this important matter. Congressional oversight is a big issue in the American controversy. The Treasury Secretary tried to bring in a scheme that avoided any form of congressional oversight and he was voted down. It would be good for this House and would make its workings more relevant if there were a small number of Deputies who developed a specialism in banking and finance and in front of whom these people could appear on a regular basis, thus making them amenable to oversight and ensuring they dealt with questions which have been in the mind of many Members of this House for a very long time, even going back to before this storm broke.

Deputy Bruton's point about the dilution of the shareholder buffer is very important. I do not know how the Minister will respond to that amendment. It is all very well saying there is €80 billion to play around with before resorting to the unfortunate taxpayer but it is important that the dilution to which he referred is clarified. On the question of a beneficiary resorting to nefarious activities the Minister says we are going in deep. I will not rehash the arguments about the necessity for rigorous regulatory monitoring, supervision and control but it is in the nature of banking institutions that once the storm blows over and they are secure they will, in some instances, resort to the same nefarious practices that got us into this situation.

If the Minister does not accept this or other amendments he might give the House some idea of what he has in mind by the addition of those two words.

See this speech in context