Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I commend Deputy Michael McGrath on his introduction of this Bill and thank him for allocating some of his time to me in order to speak this evening. In the brief time I have, I want to address three issues that were identified by the Minister and Government spokespersons during the course of the debate today and last night. The first issue I wish to deal with is the statement made by the Minister for Finance yesterday that, as a result of the publication of Deputy Michael McGrath's Bill, there was a 10% drop in the share values of Irish banks in our Stock Exchange. That was an unfair criticism, and may have been an inaccurate one. I decided, therefore, to ascertain when Deputy McGrath actually published his Bill. It was on 12 May 2016. I decided to determine the condition of share prices in the Irish banks in the week prior to that and I noticed they were in decline then. In fact, on 6 May, Irish bank shares had declined by over 3%. I looked for a market assessment as to the cause of this decline, and I looked no further than The Irish Times, which reported that bank shares were "lower in ... trading in Dublin as investors digested the draft programme for government", which was a surprise to me in light of what the Minister said last night.

I acknowledge that it is difficult at times to isolate the reasons a share will rise or fall in value, but it is an unfair criticism to say Deputy Michael McGrath's Bill has resulted in a decline of 10% in the value of Irish bank shares. It would be even more frightening, however, if what the Minister said were, in fact, true. It would reveal the extent to which Irish banks are making huge profits off the backs of people on variable mortgage interest rates. It would show that 10% of the share value of the Irish banks declined because of a proposed change to the variable mortgage interest rate through legislation in this House.

It is important that all Deputies realise that the House should not be concerned about the impact of legislation on share prices. It is not the function of the Oireachtas to have an interest in the share value of companies listed on the Irish Stock Exchange, irrespective of whether the State is a shareholder in the entities in question. The primary function of this House must be to introduce legislation that is in the interests of citizens, rather than the specific shareholders of any publicly listed company.

The issue is what can be done with the 300,000 people who are on variable interest rates and find themselves in an appalling position. The argument from the Government appears to be that they should wait until such time as the banks indicate they have accumulated sufficient profits from such people to reduce their variable interest rates. We know this will not happen. The whole purpose of having a legislative body is to be able to regulate and change the behaviour of individuals and corporations when we believe their actions are detrimentally affecting other citizens.

The Minister and other Government Deputies frequently stated there were constitutional issues with the Bill. I note that neither the Minister nor any of the other Deputies in question stated the Attorney General had advised them expressly that the Bill was unconstitutional. Instead, it was stated that commentators had raised concerns about the constitutionality of the Bill. The House cannot be guided by the concerns expressed by commentators. More specifically, the Government cannot be guided in terms of its legal advice by such commentators. The Attorney General is the constitutional officer who is required to give advice to the Government on legal matters such as the constitutionality of Bills. It is instructive that the Government has not at any stage stated that the Attorney General had advised that the Bill is unconstitutional.

I propose also to deal with another issue raised by the Minister and Government Deputies, namely, that the Central Bank is not seeking the power provided for in the Bill. I remind the Government that it is not for the Central Bank to decide what powers it is or is not given. It is a function of the House to decide what powers the Central Bank should have. We can decide to give it mandatory or discretionary powers, but it is up to us to decide what powers it has and should exercise. It is not tenable for the House to state that statutory bodies should be able to control what powers they have. Such powers are not their responsibility and it is for the Dáil to make such decisions.

If the publication of this Bill has had an impact on banks, presumably the availability of a power to intervene will similarly have an impact on the banks that have dug their heels in. I note banks have reduced their interest rates and I hope the progress of this Bill through both Houses will allow them to reduce those rates even further.

See this speech in context