John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

It has been a worthwhile discussion. I think an Cathaoirleach Gníomhach deliberately knocked the gong there to knock the Minister of State off her last few minutes.

I remember the late Brian Lenihan in this debate and "Hell at the Gates" and all he did in terms of everything that happened at that time. History will be very kind to Brian Lenihan in the job he did at that time. He laid the foundation for much that happened afterwards in terms of Government policy and other policies that were there.

I want to pick up on a few things the Minister of State said. First, the Centra Bank of Ireland is conflicted, in a way, because it takes on the role of consumer protection. I do not know how we can have a Central Bank protecting consumers as well.

I, for one, would like to see that role taken from them. I would like to see an independent entity taking on the protection of consumers.

I agree with what the Minister of State said about the credit unions. I have always been an advocate for them. They are fantastic organisations. I am a member so I should declare an interest. They have been good to local communities and to people in difficulty and have helped them to work it out. Some €1 billion was set aside for credit unions in case they got into difficulty but they did not use it. They have been good in the management of their own affairs and that should be recognised because it is not recognised enough. The Minister of State recognised the work they do, and it is significant. They have an even greater role to play in the economy if we can bring forward the legislation and provide the break that is necessary to ensure that the Central Bank does not once again fit the same jacket onto credit unions as it does for all the mainstream banks. They are, after all, credit unions, driven by the people who created them in the first place. That work that needs to be completed sooner rather than later. We hear about the billions of euro that have built up in credit unions and would be made available if only they were taken out of the legislative straitjacket of regulation by the Central Bank. I would certainly like that to happen. Great credit is due to them.

I wonder why we cannot access the European banks. We are a member of the European Union. There are banks abroad willing to service from their headquarters and provide loans and mortgages. There are examples, including the Kiwibank and Sparkasse, and we could encourage credit unions to go down that route. Sparkasse, through the committee, expressed great interest in the Irish economy and in its model becoming part of the banking structure. We have never had a real, open discussion about the banking landscape of the future. What will it look like? What does the customer want? Rather than asking what the bank wants, what does the customer want? We should have that discussion. We should invite in representatives for a wide-ranging discussion about the changes that are necessary in those banks. Before I leave the topic of the EU banking system, and the Minister of State might explain or send a note on why we are not part of one European service for banking.

She mentioned rural banking. There are two different standards. It is okay to be in Dublin city and near the main streets because it means we can go to our banks. That is fine. With regard to rural Ireland, the committee, to its great credit, had to stop AIB closing ATMs and denying people access to cash. Does that not tell us something as we debate what the banking sector should do for its customers? No one has to tell me what I should do for my customers and business because my customer is king. If a constituent comes to the Minister of State for something, that constituent is king. Apparently, we have to have all sorts of regulation for banks to acknowledge the fundamental relationship of any business, which is with its customer. Here we are telling the banks what they should do. That is how bad they are. They continue to be that bad. They are driven by their boards to make greater profits and that is what they are doing. Banks claim they will care for and look after their customers, and encourage their customers to come in. They should be told to tell the truth. They do not care a damn about much of the stuff that goes on once they are making an enormous profit. They have no responsibility of care. We have seen that in all of the issues raised in our banking report. When banks claim, "We will care for you", it should be followed by an explanation as to how far that care will go. I have not seen much care, humanity or compassion in the senior banking sector.

That is also why we are having a difficulty with the vulture funds. They are at a distance, they are without compassion, they are driven by their boards and they show little or no humanity in dealing with customers who are in real difficulty. It is from there I get the anger about this issue. I listen to it. I put myself down as a third party for many customers. In a recent case, neither I, as a third party, or the customer, was notified when the loan was sold by a bank to Pepper. They are not even acknowledging some of the basic stuff they should be. They are pumping out letters to threaten people and doing all that sort of stuff but there is no one-to-one exchange between a vulture fund and a customer. The customer in question may not be literate at all in banking language and processes and so on. That is a serious problem.

Rural Ireland faces the same problem with standard banking. An awful lot of elderly people in our rural communities are used to dealing with cheques and going into banks and meeting somebody to get over any issue they might have. Now when they ring, they are asked to press a button for this and by the time they are asked to push a button for the 12th time, they have thrown down the phone. There are also people who do not use email. We have to be careful to ensure the banking landscape of the future does not disenfranchise people from accessing a business and getting their own business done.

I spoke to a lady the other day who was defrauded of €3,500. Dealing with the bank to get the issue resolved more or less amounted to the bank saying that she made the mistake. It told her to forget her explanations and if she did not like what it was saying, go to the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman. That is not customer service. Somebody should pick up the phone, call the person and have a conversation.

When I walk in off the street and into a branch of AIB, the staff nearly run away. People are not supposed to go into the branch; actually, they can go into any branch to question something. We need to do something about that.

Cybersecurity is another issue for the banks. I do not know how well up they are on the issue. I presume that out of their massive profits, which are obscene, they are doing something to invest in cybersecurity and protect the entire financial sector.

We need to be careful about digital currencies. The committee had a session on the topic. It was enlightening, to say the least, as to what is going on there.

The Minister of State called out some mortgages rates. I know of a case where a bank sold a loan. The person in question was paying an interest rate of 3.5%. The loan was sold to a vulture fund as part of an overall package and that person is now paying a rate of 9%. If that person could not pay an interest rate of 3.5%, how in the name of God will he or she be able to pay an increased rate of 9%? These are people who have loans and want to pay them back. They are paying money back to a vulture fund that bought the loan in the first place for little or nothing. It is charging rates of up to 9% and paying no taxes. We think that is okay. I do not think that is okay; it is daft. All of this was within the scope of the Oireachtas committee and so was Jonathan Sugarman. We have a paragraph on whistleblowers. I reiterate that the Taoiseach should be big and brave. He acknowledged the role of Maurice McCabe and he should also acknowledge whistleblowers from the banks because it would be a good thing for whistleblowers generally.

Someone had better regulate receivers. It is the Wild West out there when we get into receiver territory. They are being used to clean up all sorts of things, and not in a very nice way.

I will finally consider us in this House. We are politically exposed persons under the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010. I do not launder money. I am not a criminal. How dare the House and the Government categorise us all under that legislation?

6 o’clock

Of course, it comes from the European Union and we should challenge them and the European Central Bank. I thank the Minister of State for her answers. I commend her on the work she is doing. I would like to see more done on all the issues I have raised.

See this speech in context