Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)

There is no more prevailing image in Irish history than that which depicts a family being evicted from its home. If one looks at any of the drawings and paintings relating to evictions in the past, one can see that people's suffering is amplified when there are children involved. In general, artists always depicted children as being confounded by what was happening to their homes and as wondering to where their families would go next.

The battering rams used in evictions may no longer be in use but, unfortunately, the emotional battering ram to which people can be subjected still exists. There is a need to treat this matter with a sense of urgency. During the lifetime of the previous Seanad, Senators MacSharry and Healy Eames used to lead the charge in respect of this issue on an almost daily basis as they sought to keep other Members up to date on developments. In many ways that indicated the partnership that existed between those then in government and those in opposition. I have always been of the view that such a partnership is required in respect of an issue of this nature.

I accept the assertion by a previous speaker that it would be better if these matters could be resolved without involving the Judiciary. On the other hand, there is no indication that this will happen. The banks have not sent out a message to the effect that as a result of their being recapitalised, and so on, they have a contribution to make in the context of easing people's suffering. Neither the previous Government nor the current one have been successful in obtaining such a reaction from the banks. We are not privy to the conditions that were attached to the recapitalisation programme. Do we have an input or a say in respect of how the banks operate? The State is a shareholder in several banks and has appointed people to their boards of directors who should make the case in respect of the individuals to whom I refer. However, I have not seen any results in this regard and people have already been evicted from their homes.

I realise that it was made in goodwill but I do not accept the logic behind a previous speaker's comment to the effect that because there has not been an acceleration with regard to the number of homes being repossessed, there is no need to be concerned. A couple of issues arise in this regard. First, introducing legislation, particularly if it appears to be strong in nature, sends a signal to the banks that it can be used in respect of them. The second issue is that there is no guarantee that an acceleration will not occur in respect of repossessions. I would be quite surprised if such an acceleration did not occur. The banks have not extended a flow of cash to small to medium-sized businesses. We are all aware of businesses which could do a great deal with a cash flow of €10,000 or €20,000.

We cannot obtain any answers in respect of what is happening with the banks. There appears to be cross-party agreement regarding this matter but we have not yet made a breakthrough. The position will be the same in respect of repossession. It is for this reason that the legislation must be passed. The Bill does not represent a knee-jerk reaction. Senator MacSharry has been working on it for a considerable period and I am aware that he has consulted widely with many of the players involved. Those who represent people who have already been or who are likely to be evicted have shown an interest in the legislation because they see it as something which will fill the vacuum.

It would have been great if we could have progressed the Bill beyond Second Stage. Some Senators on the Government side made excellent points and these could have been discussed further on Committee Stage. If it had been necessary to tweak the Bill to some degree or even to alter it substantially to satisfy constitutional requirements, that could have been done on Committee Stage. If the Bill does not proceed, other legislation will not be introduced in this area. The Government may be in a position to inform us that it intends to introduce alternative legislation but I do not believe that will prove to be the case. That is a pity because it sends out the wrong message from this new Seanad. We have more or less agreed that we will keep partisanship to a minimum in this House and that we will try to be co-operative and positive. That was in evidence on today's Order of Business when Opposition Senators praised the Government for the progress it has made in Europe in respect of renegotiating the interest rate relating to our loans. That is the spirit which is required in the Seanad at present. Partisanship is too expensive emotionally.

I suppose it is somewhat late to do so but I request that the Bill be allowed to proceed to the Committee Stage, particularly as this would be good in the context of what we are trying to achieve. If the Government is eventually obliged to adopt the legislation in full, then so be it. It would be bad for the image of the Seanad if this legislation were allowed to fall now. It would be a major breakthrough if it could proceed to committee stage in the interests of those who spend their nights worrying and who cannot sleep and in the interests of their children, who are concerned with regard to whether they will have a home in which to live six months from now. Strong action is required and perhaps at this late stage the Government will agree to allow the Bill to proceed.

The Minister of State was always one of the best performers in this House when he served here as a Senator. He often took a stand that was extremely independent-minded in nature in respect of particular issues. Perhaps there is a possibility that he found his time here productive and that, in the context of some of the positions he adopted in the past, he might decide to give the legislation a chance and allow it to go forward.