Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

There are times in here when one considers the names of Bills and wonders what they are about. I suggest the name of this Bill be changed to the "how to make it easier to chuck people out of their houses" Bill as it would explain it better. Perhaps it could be described as a Bill to facilitate the banks in shafting the public even more. That would explain what the Bill is about, so it would be a better title. As Deputy Healy noted, the Government should withdraw the Bill and spend its time putting together architecture whereby people can have debts written down. That is not something which is unknown in the Irish banking system. People need debt write-downs and they do not need to be further bullied by the banking system. Almost 100,000 households are in mortgage distress and if people are evicted, in most cases the State would have to step in. This legislation will not save the State any money, and although some might believe State banks will save some money down the line, overall the cost will increase.

At an Oireachtas committee meeting in later October last year, AIB chief executive, Mr. David Duffy, indicated that AIB would be in "very dangerous territory" if people who made "mad" decisions would get part of their debt "magically waived". The question needs to be asked as to who really are the mad people. Was he referring to the people who purchased a modest family home at the then market rate? The same people faced increased prices because banks like AIB and the now deceased Anglo Irish Bank shovelled money into the market. We know who he was not referring to. He was not referring to multi-billionaire media moguls, people who went "mad" by making the decision to buy newspapers around the globe at inflated prices, those who decided to buy many local titles based on prices reached from the assumption that the building boom would go on forever or media organisations who benefited from the bank and Government-engineered housing bubble by filling pages with advertisements for deluxe and exclusive apartments, otherwise known as shoeboxes. He was certainly not referring to any of those.

If Mr. Duffy had been referring to any of those, the bank would not have "magically" - to use his phrase - given Independent News and Media a write-down in the region of €35 million in the last week. That is the estimate only for that bank, of which we own 99.8%. Allowing for the biggest shareholding of 29.9% in the company, the Irish people have made a direct cash transfer from their pockets.

Who made this "mad" decision? It was not Mr. Duffy alone, as we have public interest directors after all, including a former Tánaiste, Mr. Dick Spring, the socialist, until he could not afford it. He is meant to represent the taxpayer on the board of AIB, so what was he at when this decision was made? In fairness to Mr. Spring, the socialist, he is recorded in his role as public interest director as having only worked 60 days in 2011. Maybe at the time this decision was made, he was on one of his 305 days of holiday per year, spending his €59,000 cheque from AIB, along with his €121,000 from a ministerial pension. Maybe he was spending his wonga while the bank was making its latest "mad" decision. I hope my language will be excused but I am quoting from the experts in the banking sector. What is the point in having a public interest director if the only people they are interested in protecting are multi-billionaire media moguls? Where is the voice of the AIB public interest directors when the bank is putting up interest rates on ordinary mortgage holders? It is yet again those who can least afford to pay who must pay the most.

I am sure all Deputies have had a stream of people coming to their offices with harrowing stories of how mortgage debt is crippling them both financially and, more worryingly, mentally. Deputy Clare Daly mentioned suicide, and the Government is obsessed with what the Green Party used to call "end-of-pipe" solutions to suicide. Perhaps we should concentrate on ensuring people do not end up at that precipice in the first place by making it a bit more bearable to live here and offering write-downs, as banks have done to the multi-billionaires. There was hope for these people when the Insolvency Service of Ireland was set up, but in examining its guidelines, we can see how the banks still have the whip hand, so it is easy to see how people's hopes are ebbing.

The service has published on its website guidelines on a reasonable standard of living and expenses. These are "essential to the process of moving towards long-term restructuring measures in that they enable the debt servicing capacity of a distressed debtor to be calculated in a fair and consistent manner so the sustainability of repayments can be established".

Did the Taoiseach's buddy, who got the €10 million euro write-down, have to go through such a process? Was he asked to get rid of all but one of his jets and all but one of his helicopters? Was he asked to get rid of his health insurance and to put his health at risk in a public health service that does not work? Were his living expenses examined under a microscope before we decided to write down the €10 million of his debt? Was he asked about the sustainability of his job, given the cost of child care? It is clear that Independent News and Media is not sustainable so perhaps he should go back to minding children instead of running a newspaper organisation that loses money that we have to pay for in the end. Was he asked what food he would eat and his clothing and personal care? Was he asked about household goods and communications? No, he would not be asked about communications. We gave him our communications for nothing. I imagine he would get a good deal if he went to some of his own companies. Did we ask him about his education? No, we had already educated him with taxpayers' money, tax he does not bloody well pay. Did we ask him about his household energy costs? No, we did not. Did we ask him about his insurance or about social inclusion and participation? No, we bloody well did not. We did not ask him about any of these things.

Instead, however, we go after the vulnerable.

See this speech in context