Marc MacSharry (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

-----has managed to dictate the pace in all of those countries. Whatever about the results in last year's season, this is about this year's season. We must adjudicate on the games, tactics and resources that player managers are using at this moment. In that context, there were choices to be made on the Finance Bill. We put forward budget proposals. Some were the same, some provided alternatives. Some decisions are unavoidable but in other cases there were clear choices.

Regarding the universal social charge, 3% or more was expected on incomes over ¤100,000. Far from being a measure that would bring down the house, people in that income bracket were ready for the increase. They expected it to happen. The Labour Party was pressing for the measure and it did not materialise, which clearly led to some banter behind closed doors. It was a missed opportunity. Additional funds could have been provided to offset some of the more difficult measures for families. Rather than hitting the families, we could have brought in income otherwise.

The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, seems to agree with, and has put to Cabinet, the idea of a levy on off-licence sales of alcohol. Nothing has materialised since he did so. I have a personal view on suicide prevention and a policy paper I wrote suggests the money should be spent specifically on that area of mental health. An amount of money, ¤120 million, is available in that area.

I refer to the application of the property tax. There could have been a fairer way and this has been outlined in previous debates. The principle underpinning the tax is not the issue. In 1977, the people were done an injustice by Fianna Fáil in government, although the manifesto of every political party in that general election proposed something similar. That Government did not do us a good service. We needed to reform how the tax was applied and calculated rather than abolish it but we did not and Governments have been paying for it since. The regions have suffered because they were unable to finance their own development. They have been dependent on the proximity of a Minister to bag a capital project in their area, no matter which party is in government. I do not mean that as a criticism of this Government specifically or to absolve previous Governments regarding their management.

I refer to mortgage arrears. I have pushed this issue, even when I sat on the Government benches. The Minister of State will acknowledge there was much behind the scenes support for my Family Home Bill in 2011 but when we debated it in the House, it was rejected by only three votes. The Minister of State said during the debate that there was no issue, the code of conduct was going exceptionally well and there was no cause for alarm. However, the issue has seriously worsened. We have had the Cooney and Keane reports and any amount of commentary nationally in the House and on the airwaves as interest groups and so on called for measures to be introduced. The reality is in recent weeks the Government has handed full control to the banks. Senator Barrett, myself and others have joked in the House over the past few years about the mythical back stairs that seems to be for the exclusive use of developers and bankers. One wonders whether there has been a virtual seat for the banks at the Cabinet table.

Given what was announced last week, all that needs to be done is to appoint a banker to the Cabinet because the proposals put them in full control. I am sure Members are receiving representations throughout the country about this. Today, acting as an intermediary, I was asked by people in mortgage arrears with a particular bank to be considered for its mortgage-to-let product against my advice. However, that is the only product they feel they can afford. I said I would ask for this on their behalf. The bank came back and said it was not prepared to consider the proposal but that it would allow for a reduced payment for a further three months during which time it expected the people to pay down secondary debt and then be in position to meet full repayments on the mortgage. That is a fantasy. This was superficial and not a real engagement to tick the boxes for the regulator or the Government and whoever else oversees the sector. This interaction will be repeated but now the code of conduct has been amended and the good protections regarding contact by financial institutions and so on have been removed. Those in distress can effectively be plagued to agree a solution designed by the bank. How many people have been offered a solution whereby 40% of the loan will be warehoused for 20 years? Most people in difficulty are aged between their late 20s and late 40s. Not many of them have been told that having paid off ten years of a 25-year mortgage, they are a good bet because they or their partners will get a job again and the mortgage can be extended to 25 years. It would help the banks because it would be more profitable for them at the end of day but it would be a major help to the people in difficulty with the knowledge that they can keep their home. Senator Hayden has been correctly vocal about the rights of people renting in the buy-to-let sector where there will be a focus on repossessions. A receiver will immediately move to get tenants out in order that the property can be sold because investors want to buy with vacant possession.

I acknowledge that macroeconomic indicators are coming into line but at what cost? There were, and are, choices but the Government does not seem to be grabbing them. There is banter in the House during debates as well as justified criticism and constructive criticism.

The Minister and the Minister of State enjoy the support of everyone in reaching the targets set. However, can we start pushing people out front in the solutions we ought to use? The precedent set in Cyprus is not a good sign for this country's corporation tax rate or burning depositors, with senior bondholders, rather than protecting them.