Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the United Left Alliance, I wish to express our concern and disappointment. In general terms, we all want to achieve some relief for those in mortgage distress or who are otherwise stuck under the burden of significant personal indebtedness. There is a genuine desire across the House to do something about that, but it is disappointing that we have not gone a hell of a lot further in this legislation.

In the amendments we tabled on Committee Stage - pretty much all of which were ruled out of order - we urged a model whereby the insolvency agency the Government intends to establish would have the power to impose fair settlements on banks.

It is disappointing that the Government has not taken that road, as is the case in some other countries.

The model the United Left Alliance considered was that which obtained in Norway. It appears as though Norway has many models Ireland could follow on a range of levels when it comes to managing the relationship between the State and private interests. However, the proposal was there would be much stronger legal imperatives completely safeguarding the family home, as well as an independent body that could impose a fair settlement and write-down, where needs be, on the financial institutions, that is, on the banks. This is what should and could have been done and I believe it is the only measure that will resolve this major problem. While legislation of this type to update and improve the law in this regard would be important at any stage, we are not just at any stage. We are at a stage at which the entire economy is suffocated with this stuff and where there is a serious question mark over whether it is possible to talk about anything approaching economic recovery unless this problem is dealt with comprehensively. The concern of the United Left Alliance, which has been expressed by other Deputies, is that will not be achieved with this legislation, because it does not go far enough and still leaves the whip hand with the banks.

This is disappointing, particularly because I attended the meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform to which Deputy Donnelly referred and I heard the Minister's response stating he is disappointed that an individual should display that attitude. However, it is clear that it is not an individual. While the chief executive officer of AIB was slightly more polite in the way he put it, he actually said more or less the same thing. The chief executive officer of Bank of Ireland, Mr. Boucher, was not terribly polite but he was doing what is logical from the point of view of a commercial entity that is a bank. If one is operating a bank on the commercial basis that such people perceive themselves to be operating it, then what they are doing is logical. It is not of great interest to them whether people are in distress or whether the economy is banjaxed because they do not give significant debt relief. That is not their concern, which is to maximise profits to restore their balance sheet. That is what they do. The question is whether Members will intervene with legislation and other powers to adjust their priorities in order that their priorities align themselves with the public interest to a greater extent. I refer to the interests of distressed mortgage holders, the economy and the public interest as a whole. In Members' conversations with them, it has been clear that they simply do not get that. They think their interests are the public interest. What emerged from the discussions is they think what is good for them is good for us. However, as it is apparent that what is good for them is not good for us, this message must be hammered into their heads in some way.

On the issue of public interest directors, one point to emerge is Members must tell the public interest directors what to do. Members must hold them to account and must instruct them how to represent the public interest on the boards of banks and to go in to bat for the public interest on issues such as distressed mortgages. As I understand it, however, the Minister is stating that under this legislation, if the banks do not do a reasonable deal the threat of bankruptcy will be enough to push them to do sol. However, as Deputy Donnelly has outlined, there is a very serious question mark when one has this eight-year period, rather than three years after which one can walk away.

I would like this legislation to be stronger. I recognise that even with all its limitations and shortcomings - as I might perceive them - this still represents an improvement on the status quo, in which people have nothing and are in complete limbo. Consequently, it is not a case of voting against the legislation but I can tell the Minister that at this point, I consider the legislation to be inadequate and that it will not do the job. Members must register that fact with the Minister in some way and the logical way to so do is to vote against this particular amendment, which qualifies and seriously dilutes the threat of bankruptcy that a debtor can use to try to put pressure on the bank.

See this speech in context