Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I am glad the Minister of State did not read the script. Either the official knows me very well or what was provided was a standard script.

We will always disagree on particular political points. We can also talk all we like about history, although it is important in the context of learning from the mistakes of the past. I have probably used 30% of Fianna Fáil's Private Members' time in the lifetime of this Seanad to try to address the issues of mortgage distress, arrears and debt. Fianna Fáil has brought forward realistic options and alternatives that should be looked at.

I hope that when we come to debate the personal insolvency legislation in a year's time, I will have been proved wrong. However, I do not believe it will work because of the bank veto, the lack of independent arbitration and the proposal that half the salaries of personal insolvency experts be met by banks. In this regard, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, is only providing a new layer of the Judiciary to deal with this specific item. As I said to the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, the Government must define what is meant by "sustainable". I firmly believe it should not leave it to the banks to decide what will be a sustainable solution. I say this as someone who, prior to being elected to the Houses, worked in the financial services sector for 15 years. I hope the Minister of State will relay my request to the Minister and I am sure he will do so.

I accept the argument that every case is different. However, we need to deal with this issue within the parameter that 40% of a person's take home pay, after tax, is the maximum a bank can insist on taking. The bank could then move towards other solutions such as split mortgages, an extension of mortgage terms, etc., which should be looked at in more detail. It should not be left to the banks to determine, in respect of all of the issues we have discussed time and again, what the fix will be. I am sure that, like me, the Minister of State and other Senators have acted on behalf of constituents in their dealings with banks. It should not be forgotten that it is the bank official's job to know the ins and outs of the banking process. At a time when people's homes are up for grabs, they are being asked, despite not necessarily being well versed in financial matters, to fill in financial statements, back them up with all necessary information and then meet a senior official in a bank.

The motion was tabled in good faith and this has been a useful debate. I agree with much of what has been said by Senators across the House, although I do not agree with much of what was contained in the Minister of State's speech, which he edited well. The current statutory code of conduct should not be ripped up, as it provides the only protection in this area. Like I am sure most Senators present, I know what the response of the banks will be to the introduction of the land and conveyancing Bill to set aside the Dunne judgment. It will be a repossession charter for the banks. Like Senator John Gilroy, I have seen a lot of requests from banks for voluntary sales, particularly in the past two months. Some of them have been based specifically on value in cases in which the mortgage amount is low. Banks know what they are at and should not be trusted. The Government should set the bar and parameters for them. I hope some of the suggestions we have made in this debate will feed into that process. The Government should not trust the banks, as they will not do what it wants them to do.

I again thank all colleagues for their contributions to the debate.