Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Caithfidh mé a rá go bhfuil fíor-aiféala orm nach bhfuil an tAire Airgeadais anseo anocht. Tagann sé inár láthair ó thráth go chéile, bíonn cúpla focal le rá aige agus ligeann sé air féin gur saoi nó fáidh de shaghas éigin é, ach ní bhíonn aon ghníomh uaidh ar chor ar bith. I have to say I am very disappointed that the Minister for Finance does not think this issue is important enough that he should turn up to hear from our party's spokesman, who is sponsoring this important Bill. This legislation that has been proposed by Deputy Michael McGrath is properly prepared and comprehensive.

We need to look at what is happening. Variable rate mortgages are being kept at an artificially high rate. If any other consumer product were involved, the consumer affairs agency would be in here saying that a cartel is in operation. If one looks at the rates, one will see that KBC, Ulster Bank and Permanent TSB have rates of 4.3%, ICS has a rate of 4.35%, Bank of Ireland has a rate of 4.5% and Danske Bank has a rate of 4.95%. The outlier here is AIB, which has a rate of 3.9%. What are they doing? They are penalising the most vulnerable borrowers of long-term finance in the State - those who borrowed on variable rates during the boom - because they lost money as a result of giving out too many tracker mortgages and being unable to run their affairs efficiently. What is the Government doing about it? I am reminded of summer 2012, when the Minister and the Taoiseach went to Brussels and achieved a "seismic shift" in relation to the bailing out of the banks that amounted to a puff of smoke.

The same thing happened in this case. Everything was supposed to happen by 1 July. That date came and, effectively, nothing of any consequence had happened. In the meantime, the banks are taking houses from people who are paying the full amount of interest and a certain amount of the capital. If the Minister does not know that is happening, he is obviously not listening to his constituents. If he knows it is happening, he knows that if the interest rates were as they should be, those people would be able to pay the full amount of their mortgage repayments.

What makes the matter even more puzzling is what is happening with, for example, Bank of Ireland. That bank will give the customer a fixed rate for two years at a smaller amount than a variable rate, even though we know that the price of money on the wholesale markets will probably never be cheaper. Can the Minister explain that? Why is it giving a two-year fixed rate option cheaper than the variable rate? I could understand that being so if rates were at a historic high, but when they are at a historic low, would it not be cheaper for the bank to borrow short-term funds, or even long-term funds at present, at a cheaper rate than they are likely to be able to get them at in the future? What are the banks doing? They are trying to make money for themselves and their shareholders.

There is a principle of regulation across the board, going to the heart of consumer legislation and competition law, which provides that where there is a small number of private monopolies, one does not allow them to create an effective cartel. Interestingly, if one reads the Constitution and the social guidelines at the back of the Constitution, one can see that there is provision constitutionally for an obligation to deal with this issue. This Bill is a way of doing that. It is a way of ensuring that the banks act in a fair and proper manner and stop robbing the poor people who happen to be in the unfortunate situation of having made the wrong choice, not knowing what the future would hold in terms of interest rates, in taking out a variable rate mortgage rather than a tracker rate mortgage.

I hope that over the next two days the Minister will listen to the proposal put forward by Deputy McGrath, who is a thoughtful and considered person. He has put a great deal of work into researching these issues and studying all of the implications. He has come up with a rational proposal which basically deals with banks if they are overcharging and abusing their monopoly or a cartel situation in respect of a small number of customers. If they are abusing their situation, it is difficult to swap one mortgage for another, because there are all sorts of legal issues attached to swapping, such as security. The Minister is aware of all the hassle that would cause for an ordinary citizen, along with the cost of legal fees, particularly these days. Swapping mortgages is not like buying a new coat. It is quite complicated to change the lender of one's mortgage.

The Minister knows that in this situation it is incumbent on the State to act, as outlined in the Constitution, to protect the interests of the citizen from exploitation. The simple thing for the Government to do tomorrow night is to say, "Deputy McGrath, you have come forward with a good way of dealing with this issue. It is a reasonable proposition, we need it to protect our citizens and we are going to support what you have done." If the Government does not do that, it will be a clear sign to mortgage holders and particularly to distressed borrowers that the Government does not care and that it is acting more in the corporate interest than in the interest of the citizen. The Government will make a clear choice tomorrow. I hope it will make the right decision, do the big thing and accept that Fianna Fáil has been making a valid point and that it must act and do something about it now rather than wringing its hands and literally doing nothing.

See this speech in context