David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the motion. I listened to all of the contributions made on the issue and I appreciate where colleagues are coming from on it. It is only right and proper that firms doing significant levels of business in Ireland, and which have a significant impact on the daily lives of large numbers of people and are subject to the laws of the land, have due respect for the democratic institutions of the State. This is why we have tabled the proposed amendment to the motion calling on investment funds to engage with the joint committee as a matter of urgency and to attend the joint committee when invited.

I agree, as does the Government, that funds and other firms should pay due respect to the committee and attend before it, when invited. I hope this is clear. It is the main point we are all making, that the committee would be able to engage and question the funds. This is the end result we want. Officials in the Department of Finance have strongly advocated in meetings with these funds that they should appear before the committee.

I was the Chairman of a committee for four or five years. We must look at how we treat witnesses when they appear before committees and whether any changes to the style of seeking information should be considered to encourage witnesses to attend voluntarily. Nobody likes to be attacked and shouted at. We need to look at this. Perhaps speaking softly and asking precise questions can bring precise answers. People making speeches and grandstanding for the soundbite does not work. I am not saying this happens at the finance committee by any means but I have seen it happen at some committees. Perhaps it would be better to have precise, focused and incisive questions to get at the nub of an issue rather than making Second Stage speeches which I have seen happen at many committee meetings. It is what I tried to encourage as Chairman of the justice committee and I believe it worked pretty well.

Other things could be done to explore ways for committees to advance the issue. The term "vulture funds" has been used quite a bit during the debate. This has come to take on a pejorative meaning in discussions on loan sales. People who work for these funds, including the witnesses whom the committee would wish to attend, would not describe themselves as being employed by a vulture fund. The committee may wish to consider whether the tone of the report is likely to help or hinder the future attendance of such witnesses.

The recommendation that the Government should "cease all engagement with unregulated private investment funds and regulated credit service firms until these entities are accountable to Parliament" has already been addressed to a large extent by the Minister of State, Deputy D'Arcy, in his opening speech. I echo his points. It is in the interest of the State that we should continue to engage with these funds. Otherwise, how can we get them to change their minds about appearing? Also, engagement with private equity funds allows the Department of Finance and other Government bodies to develop market intelligence to allow better policy development. As has been noted, such communication and interaction with private equity firms is a two-way process, in that officials and Ministers can communicate what various Government policies mean in order to demonstrate that Ireland is a good place for such funds to invest.

There is also a worrying lack of clarity in the motion as formulated. It could have multiple unintended consequences because of how it is worded. It could be interpreted as prohibiting contact with all kinds of funds that may have legitimate reasons for wishing to invest in Ireland and to engage with the Government on multiple levels. There are sound policy reasons this engagement should take place. Many of these funds have no dealings with Irish consumers or mortgages and have a solely international focus. It is important that motions and legislation drafted and put before the House are practical, realistic and clear and that they can be implemented in a straightforward way.

I urge the committee to use the powers it has to explore matters of concern and to ensure that the consideration of the topic is as thorough as possible. For example, there is much discussion about non-banks being most aggressive in repossessing properties but the figures on repossessions indicate clearly that most repossessions are undertaken by banks. The full-year figures for 2017, for example, indicate that of 1,417 principal dwelling homes repossessed, only 148 were repossessed by non-banks and 1,269 were repossessed by banks. The Central Bank has a wealth of data on this and it accepts invitations to attend the committee. The Central Bank is also willing to accept any evidence of wrongdoing by regulated entities, including regulated credit servicing firms. I urge the committee to consider how best to inform itself on this issue in the absence of witnesses making themselves available to attend before it. The committee could also consider seeking written answers to the questions it wishes to pose, if it has not done so. I am not sure if that has happened and perhaps the Chairman will tell us when he sums up.

To conclude, the Government considers that these funds should attend before the committee but that prohibition of all engagement with investment funds would be counterproductive and is also too loosely worded to be practical. It has, therefore, tabled an amendment, which I commend to the House.

See this speech in context