Marc MacSharry (Fianna Fail)

Regardless of whether it is in order to do so, I welcome Mr. Lee and I apologise to the Leas-Chathaoirleach.

I thank all Senators for their contributions. There is much in the Bill that everyone would welcome. As the Minister of State indicated, the Government has four main issues with this legislation. The first of these is that the Bill is simply not necessary. However, almost everyone agrees that it is necessary. The Minister of State said that the existing code of conduct is good. The programme for Government clearly states that the code and the recommendations put forward in the Cooney report are inadequate. It is now proposed that an interdepartmental working group of the economic management council be established to examine this issue.

Relying on the code of conduct in its current form is similar to handing passengers on the Titanic inflatable armbands as the ship went down. Senator D'Arcy stated that so far the code of conduct is working. That is not the case.

The Central Bank stated on 1 July that 66% of financial institutions were not living up to the realities of the code of conduct.

The issue of the code of practice being statutory was raised by Senator Fidelma Healy Eames. It is statutory only in the sense that the Financial Regulator is empowered to make it under statute, but, as Senator Mark Daly said, one cannot individually challenge a bank in court in this regard. Therefore, in that sense it is not statutory. The banks are the ones which do this. For example, a bank will ask if an official engaged with punter X and offered an extended term. When the official confirms that he or she did so, the bank will ask what extended term the official offered, to which he or she will reply "an additional two years". A 48 year old homeowner with ten years remaining on his or her mortgage knows he or she could meet his or her repayments if the ten-year term remaining were extended to 20 years. When has such a term been extended for anybody? The answer is it has not been.

It concerns me that the bankers, as Senator Sean Barrett said, are still getting up the backstairs in Government Buildings. When I was on the other side of the House, I said this was happening and that it was wrong. This is not about protecting the banks but about protecting the fabric of Ireland and families. We want to protect what is provided for in Articles 41.1 and 41.2 of the Constitution. It is unconstitutional not to support the main thrust of the Bill and allow its passage on Second Stage. A number of the issues raised can be embraced on Committee Stage when a new section could be inserted to address a particular issue or a particular provision could be deleted if it might pose a danger to its constitutionality. There is much to support in the Bill.

There is the legal uncertainty. Senator Colm Burke mentioned the case taken by the New Beginning group which wrote to every Member of the House asking him or her to support the Bill. While Ms Justice Dunne has taken issue in this respect, that does not impact on the 2009 Act; it merely interprets it. Clearly, the Government, as the Minister of State said, might have to rectify the matter and could do so on the first available opportunity on Committee Stage of this Bill.

We would all like it if this was a non-judicial issue, but the reality is it is such an issue every Monday. The Bill contains proposals to sort out that matter by giving options to the courts. It would not prohibit repossession in every instance, but it would give tools to the courts to help families. If enacted, very few such cases would go to court. The bankers who were so creative and innovative when they came up with derivatives to bust the world to the tune of hundreds of billions of euros and dollars would focus their minds on coming up with derivatives that would help families to meet their obligations and allow them to stay in the family home.

Senator Colm Burke mentioned section 6(e) in terms of a debt for equity swap and said he was concerned that it might not be constitutional. However, in the middle of June he voted in favour of a motion brought forward by Senator Aideen Hayden supporting a debt for equity option.

Senator Michael D'Arcy started for the Government side and I wrote down a number of the words he used. He said: "There is nothing in this for us." I am bound to say to the Minister of State that before this debate took place the Cabinet insisted on the Whip coming down on this issue. Having considered the points made, the only reason he and his colleagues have not to support the Bill on Second Stage is that, "There is nothing in this for us." This is not about who came up with the proposal. We do not want ownership of it. This is a collective approach. It has often happened that a Bill has been agreed to on Second Stage and a wide variety of changes have been made on Committee Stage. Unlike what Senator Susan O'Keeffe said, that is the nature of the legislative process. Good legislation is all-encompassing. I beseech all Members on this one occasion to take the Minister of State's advice and use their own mind because I know from speaking to many of them in recent weeks that they want to support this legislation. There is enough support for it to be passed on Second Stage. It does not offer the ultimate solution, but would be a start, as all speakers have acknowledged. Let us embrace it now; carpe diem . Let us do it together. I commend the Bill to the House.