Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

I wish to share time with Deputy Morgan.

I never cease to be amazed by the breadth of knowledge of the Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works and by his involvement in such a wide area of subject matter in the House. The fact he has come racing in to underpin the code worked out with the banks by his colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, means there must be a great dearth of willingness on the Government benches to condemn Deputy Charles Flanagan's Bill. Having begun softly by sympathising with Deputy Flanagan highlighting the plight of vulnerable debtors who, in some cases, are being subjected to heavy handed pressure, harassment and even intimidation, the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, went on to deny the problem exists. He went further by saying that if the problem exists, the place to deal with is not in the financial regulatory structure and concluded that it would not be a good idea to construct "a vast regulatory edifice". I did not hear anybody proposing to build such an edifice but I do not say I fail to appreciate the Government coming around to the recognition in its 12th and dying year that constructing vast edifices is not always necessarily a good thing but mar a deir an seanfhocal, "Is fearr déanach ná ró-dhéanach", and I welcome that latter day conversion.

Deputy Flanagan has raised a real issue. Sadly, this is a growth industry in the times in which we live. People find themselves indebted for whatever reason and, in some cases, they are extremely vulnerable, stressed and unable to discharge debts not because of recklessness on their part but because of the economic circumstances in which they find themselves. Only a small number of debtors plunge themselves knowingly and recklessly into these circumstances. In so far as recklessness is involved, it is not merely involved on the side of the consumer, it is frequently shared by the lender where moneys were recklessly lent in circumstances where questions might reasonably have been raised about ability to repay. Honest, decent, law abiding citizens find themselves in these circumstances and one has heard the case being made that they are being subjected to debt collection methods of which the House could not approve.

Is this jurisdiction out of step with similar and neighbouring jurisdictions within the European Union? Is debt collecting regulated in other countries? My understanding is it is in many countries yet no such regulation is in place here. Anybody, notwithstanding his or her track record, background or reputation, can set up a debt collection service in Ireland. I do not mean to say someone who found himself in difficulty with the law in relatively minor circumstances should forever be disbarred from this or any other type of work. I wish the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, had remained in the House to inform us where is his Spent Convictions Bill 2007. I would like this relatively minor Bill disposed of. I am puzzled, since we dealt with Second Stage many months ago, about why it cannot be progressed to Committee Stage but we have not reverted to it and we ought to.

It is an entirely different matter, however, for the House to hear allegations that somebody with a serious criminal record can engage in this business with impunity. Judging by his script, the attitude of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform seems to be either that the problem does not exist, that it would be wrong to handle it as the Fine Gael Bill suggests or that it would be too expensive to deal with it. He seems to be saying that it is a fact of life in the circumstances in which we are living and he is afraid that we must pass over it.

The Minister of State came into the House to corroborate the Minister's position and draws our attention again to the code worked out with the banks as a result of them getting €7 billion of taxpayers' money. The Bill's proponents may hold a different view but I do not think that the commercial banks or financial institutions are really at the heart of what is being aimed at here. I do not think mortgage institutions or the collection of mortgage debt is the type of thing that freelance collection agencies of dubious repute are concerned with. Generally speaking, a different route is taken by mortgage lenders. Most reputable mortgage lenders do not engage in heavy handed, oppressive or intimidating tactics in the way that other debts are being pursued.

The Minister of State says he agrees that the financial regulatory structure is not the place to include some kind of regulator of debt collection agencies. He says the purpose of the Financial Regulator is to foster sound and solvent financial institutions, which give depositors and other consumers of financial products confidence that their deposits and investments are safe. The Minister of State is right to say that was the intention, but that is not exactly the way it has worked out. Men of means, like the Minister of State with responsibility for the OPW, are very worried about their few bob in the banks, and certainly very worried about the conduct of the regulator in ensuring prudential supervision of the financial institutions. The aspiration was there and now he thinks it would be imposing on the Financial Regulator to repose this responsibility with him.

In so far as I can see, it is true that Deputy Charles Flanagan omitted to define debt collectors in the Bill and that would have to be put right, but it is a very minor matter. This Government seems to have made a habit of deploying all the resources available to it in order to pick holes in Private Members' Bills. Depending on how the wind is blowing later, however, they come in with the same legislation as if it was their own. The most recent example was the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill dealing with covert surveillance. When the original Bill was published by the Labour Party there were extraordinary holes in it, according to the Government. According to the Minister, it would be in danger of alerting criminals to Garda investigative techniques. After a couple of terrible tragedies in Limerick, however, the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, came around to the notion that it was his idea and he was in favour of it all along. It was then republished and rebranded. I suspect therefore that the issue raised by Deputy Flanagan about the necessity to regulate the debt collection agency system will come back to this House because we are heading into the kind of times where, unfortunately, resorting to debt collectors is likely to be more frequent.

Deputy Flanagan dealt with a small percentage of people who end up in prison for non-payment of debts or being unable to discharge fines. That is a real issue, especially on a night when the Minister announced that the Thornton Hall project is not proceeding because the preferred bidder has withdrawn or because negotiations with the preferred bidder have broken down. I do not know how many times in this House I have pursued with the Minister whether he was satisfied with the capacity of the preferred bidder to deliver the Thornton Hall project. The Minister got up on his high horse, as he frequently does, and piously lectured us about the outrageous imputation that he, above any Member of this House, would be seen even on the same side of the street as a developer. It is a very odd thing for him to say, given that he was the former Taoiseach's preferred emissary to London to find out anything he could about developers there, and a thing or two about developers in Dundalk as well, as Monarch Properties will tell one. However, the Minister thought it was a terrible imputation. I do not mind talking to developers at all. I do not see what the Minister thought was wrong with it, but clearly he did not satisfy himself about the capacity of this particular developer to deliver. After spending €41.5 million on farm land at an unsuitable location - that was purchased for approximately five times its value at the instruction of the former Minister, Michael McDowell and then Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen - we have now been plunged into a situation where the project has collapsed. We need to address the issue of incarcerating people for non-violent crimes otherwise we will have a serious overcrowding problem in our prisons.

Deputy Flanagan has highlighted the necessity to regulate debt collectors and protect vulnerable people from their methods, which is a real issue. One must come from a very cosseted section of society to suggest what the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, did in his script. He said he wanted to emphasise clearly that any person who feels he or she has been threatened or harassed by anyone in the context of recovery of a debt allegedly owed by them, should contact the gardaí. I represent a constituency where debt collection by moneylenders is a pretty regular feature of life every Saturday. To some extent, as a result of the Consumer Credit Act, which I introduced, we have regulated the sector so that moneylenders operating outside the law's remit are the exception nowadays. However, to tell people that they should advise the gardaí in those circumstances misunderstands the facts of life in large tracts of urban Ireland, and I presume some tracts of rural Ireland. I can understand that out in Blackrock one may get a speedier response from les gendarmes than in certain other parts of the city. The Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, may feel safe in his bed at night but unfortunately in large tracts of urban Ireland people do not feel so safe. They certainly do not feel that it is an escape from heavy-handed tactics by people seeking to recover debts to telephone the Garda and that everything will be all right.

This is a real issue. I do not see any need for an elaborate edifice. Reposing it in the consumer side of the financial regulatory structure seems to be as good a place as anywhere else but, quite frankly, I do not mind where it is so long as we do something to ensure the service is regulated.

See this speech in context