Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank all Deputies who contributed to this debate over the past two nights and acknowledge the constructive and conciliatory contribution of the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Brian Hayes. It was consistent with the purpose of this motion, which is solutions-driven. That is what we are about. It is the reason my colleagues and I are in politics.

As stated by Deputy Kelleher, the approach last night of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, was unfortunately very different. He spent most of his time giving his version of history and lambasting Fianna Fáil to such an extent that he almost ran out of time and had to read quickly through the important part of his speech. He used all of his time lambasting Fianna Fáil in what was an utterly non-constructive speech, which, in my opinion, was not befitting of a Minister. The core of his argument was that any deal must be voluntary in nature. He stated as a matter of fact, citing constitutional precedent, that the body which Fianna Fáil proposed be established would be struck down by the courts. I believe that is a debatable point. Article 43 of the Constitution is clear that the issue of property rights is in the context of the principles of social justice and can be set aside if in the common good. There is a strong case to be made that this proposal is sound. Even if a constitutional amendment is required, so be it. Let us have that referendum. I do not accept that the Government can legislate to take people's private pension savings yet cannot introduce a proposal such as this because of property rights under the Constitution. The reality is that if the political will existed this issue could be dealt with. We could certainly enact legislation along the lines suggested by Fianna Fáil. I believe this should be done.

The essence of the argument made by the Minister, Deputy Shatter, last night in opposing this motion, leaving aside his vitriolic criticism of Fianna Fáil, was that the banks will do deals with borrowers because they know that if they turn down a deal the borrower has the option of bankruptcy, which is utterly ridiculous. The Minister is essentially saying that bankruptcy will be the solution for a great many families. There is no requirement for this. In the vast majority of cases, a proper sustainable solution can be put in place without families being pushed to bankruptcy and all of the consequences that flow from that. The best way to get the banks to act and enter into deals voluntarily, which is what we would all like to see, is to put in place an independent body which would have the ultimate power to impose a binding solution. That would brings the banks to heel and ensure they enter into arrangements with people. Currently, based on all the announcements from the Government, more power is being given to the banks. Ultimately, if a person ends up in an insolvency arrangement the bank retains the right of veto.

What is frustrating is that this problem can be solved. The economy will recover. Many people currently dealing with mortgage distress will be in better financial circumstances in the future. This is about sitting down with the banks, negotiating and putting in place the right solution and establishing an independent body which, when such negotiations fail, can put in place a solution. We all know the scale of the problem. The total mortgage book in respect of family homes is approximately €110 billion, €30 billion of which is accounted for by mortgages that are in arrears or have been restructured. That is the scale of the problem. It is enormous. We know that action such as that proposed by Fianna Fáil is urgently required.

The point of disagreement between us and the Government is who should have the final say if banks and borrowers cannot agree on a voluntary arrangement. The Government's position is that the banks should have the final say through the measures provided in the revised code of conduct, the mortgage arrears resolution process and proposed legislation to reverse the Dunne judgment. Fianna Fáil has proposed a different solution, which requires that if it comes to it, an independent body would have the final say. If the Government were to signal to the banks that if they do not step up to the plate and reach all of the targets set it will legislate to give effect to a proposal such as ours, we would see far more action on this issue.

See this speech in context