Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)

On the general context of the Bill, the €100, to which Senator Leyden referred correctly, would appear to be unfair. I accept it relates more to section 3, which we will come to in a moment. It is inequitable for a person in a bed-sit in west Donegal to be charged €100 the same as those in mansions in any part of country valued at far in excess of €1 million. That was acknowledged, even by the Fine Gael and Labour parties, before the election. There is a different scenario now and we will go through that at the next stage.

Regarding properties that are under the control of NAMA which may be in liquidation or in bankruptcy proceedings and where the developers may be in financial difficulty, etc., these developers and the banks that gave the money are the cause of where we are at in this country. Whether they are in receivership, bankrupt or whatever else, we cannot justify socially on the basis of equity making those properties exempt but charging those on social welfare payments, medical cards, etc. It is incomprehensible to consider going down that road, .

I appreciate where the Government is coming from on the exemptions listed in section 2(3)(a) and (b). I appreciate the State saying that it will not get the money anyway or it is charging itself in the long run, but it sends out the wrong message. Even if those companies that own the properties are in examinership, receivership, liquidation or are bankrupt, the charge should follow the individuals who are culpable and responsible as part of the other proceedings that are being taken against them. I would have no sympathy for many of those, some of whom made irresponsible decisions, because banks were giving extra money and bankrolling properties that would never be viable financially. These same banks had the economic forecasts to know, prior to giving the money, that it was never going to work in the first place.

Those who gave the loans for those properties, and the individuals who took out the loans on those properties and who find themselves in difficulty, need to be held accountable. If that means the State charging individual bank managers under this legislation, then I would have no difficulty supporting the Government if it came forward with amendments in that regard.

We are going down the wrong road if we are saying that if one is under NAMA and one sticks one's property and stuff into bankruptcy or into liquidation, which is convenient for many out there at present, then there is no charge. Socially and morally, it sends out the wrong message. Even from a political point of view, it is something the Government should consider.