Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this topic for discussion. I have come across a number of business people who are trying to sustain the jobs of those they employ in the face of heavy-handed activity by some banks. I wish to focus in particular on banks that are not covered by the guarantee. What can the Minister do about such practices? I will cite examples from my constituency, although this is happening throughout the sector. I spoke to an individual who employs 40 staff in a business that is in its third generation. On a monthly basis, that business is being hauled in and asked to provide figures. The bank's overriding concern is not how sustainable the business is, but how quickly it can get repayments. Some of these banks have an exit strategy which is dominating how they interact with their customers.

The second example is a business that employs in excess of 120 people. Once again, the bank meets them on a monthly basis. In this case it is a collection of businesses run by several family members, but it is one company. They had been doing very well except that they invested in upgrading their properties. As I said, the bank is not covered by the guarantee. They were hauled in and eventually asked to undertake expensive research on what would improve their margins. They were also asked whether, if they invested in something, it would improve the company's sustainability. The outcome was that an investment of €30,000 in some technology would improve things significantly. When they asked the bank for a loan to make the improvement that the bank itself had sought, the bank refused the loan request. They questioned why they were being asked to make that investment in a report when the bank clearly had no intention of providing the funds.

The problem is that the exit strategy of some banks that are not covered by the guarantee has the potential to put many people out of work. I saw ISME's press statement today and, while I would not agreed with all of ISME's views, one can see from its language the frustration the organisation feels on behalf of its membership. ISME is focusing on the bailed-out institutions, but people who have debts with banks that are not covered by the guarantee are in a much more exposed position.

What kind of powers does the Minister for Finance have to deal with these institutions? How can we get a more sensible arrangement that would give viable businesses more time to repay? Some businesses may lose viability because of the pressure being put on them to pay back what is owed more quickly than is possible. The pressure being put on such people is making the situation unsustainable because they are clearly unable to focus on running and developing their businesses due to the pressure from these banks.

See this speech in context