Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)

I appeal to the Minister to reconsider her decision. In any parliamentary democracy, if someone comes up with a perfectly reasonable request to the effect that a report be produced that could provide information for further debate, it always is good for a government to have the input of positive contributions from its opposition. I do not understand how a government can refuse to accept an amendment calling for the production of a basic report.

The Minister's reply also referred to the fact that the taxpayer only can pay so much. All Members agree with that point and they acknowledge the budget for social welfare is large. However, everyone pays PRSI to be used at a time of need and this issue goes beyond that. Moreover, in respect of much of what has been discussed in this regard, I do not seek the taxpayer to fork out. This issue must be resolved by those banks and building societies that gave out such loans in the first place. My point is that as part of the current negotiations with banks and building societies about recapitalisation and saving their businesses, the Government should play an active part by throwing this issue into the melting pot for debate. The financial institutions should then come up with a solution that Members may not be able to formulate in the space of half an hour's debate in the House. The taxpayer should not be obliged to pay everything and the building societies and banks must find a system, although I am unsure how, to deal with how repayments will be made or how different payments could be made at different times to catch up and similar matters. Ultimately, when it comes to paying off the loan, hopefully the house in question will have risen in value again and will be worth more than what actually was owed. It would be better to have people remaining in their homes and seeing it out to the end, rather than being kicked out on the street.

Members should put on their thinking caps and should not engage in party politics. If the Minister refuses to accept the amendment, the division bells will ring and Members will be taken from their lunch tables who will not know on what amendment they are voting. I suggest that were one to conduct a survey of every Member of the House asking them whether they agree with voting for the production of a report following the passage of a Bill, they all would do so. However, if the Minister sticks to her guns and refuses to accept this amendment, the division bells will ring, Members will march in, the Minister will win and that will be the end of it. This is an appalling way in which to run a parliament.

See this speech in context