Seanad debates

Thursday, 15 May 2014

Central Bank Bill 2014: Second Stage

 

12:25 pm

Photo of Marc MacSharryMarc MacSharry (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister and wish him well in all his endeavours on our behalf. Fianna Fáil will not be opposing the Bill, which relates to the sale of ICS and to Greece recouping the profits the ECB made on its bonds. The point was made in the Lower House that these two issues are unrelated and that, as a result, this is something of a miscellaneous provisions Bill. It should have been possible, therefore, to use it to deal with a couple of other matters, to which I will refer later.

The briefing I received from the Department officials indicated that the sale of a certain proportion of ICS's mortgage book to unregulated entities would be unlikely to be approved by the European Commission. We are not 100% satisfied with that, because Bank of Ireland may decide to deleverage the elements of the loan book which may be most distressed. I am sure my colleague, Deputy Michael McGrath, made the point to the Minister that this might allow for the bank to farm out its repossession operations and the enforcement aspect of its debt collection business in a way of which neither the Minister nor the taxpayer would approve. This is particularly relevant when one considers that we still retain a 14% holding in Bank of Ireland.

In the Dáil, the Minister accepted in principle the provisions of a Bill designed to regulate or bring some structure to sales of loan books. In that context, why is he not availing of the opportunity afforded by the legislation before us to take steps to protect taxpayers and their families and ensure that loans and mortgages that are sold on by banks will be covered under measures such as the code of conduct on mortgage arrears and the mortgage arrears resolution process? As he is aware, from the perspective of my party, the measures to which I refer do not go far enough. We would prefer if an independent authority - rather than the banks - were responsible for adjudicating on whether deals relating to insolvency, debt write-downs and so forth should be considered. We therefore request that the Minister re-examine the position in this regard.

While the macro picture in respect of the banks is beginning to look better - Bank of Ireland is operating on its own again and AIB is making good sounds - the micro picture is very different, particularly in the context of the pressure being exerted on families to pay back their debts. We are of the view that the bottom line is being pursued in an extremely rigorous manner, especially by those banks - Danske, Rabo, etc. - which have decided to exit the market. However, AIB and Bank of Ireland are also pursuing the best results for themselves rather than for the families that have loans with them. I refer, for example, to circumstances in which a farmer may owe €500,000 on 100 acres of land which may be worth €1 million. Rather than seeking to exhaust the full suite of work-out arrangements which, from time to time, are trumpeted in these Houses and by the Irish Banking Federation, banks are forcing the situation in such cases and seeking immediate sale in order to recoup their money. That is wrong, particularly as it involves the country being divvied up in order to save these institutions. I do not believe that matters such as that to which I refer are being dealt with on a case-by-case basis. There is a need to take a more hands-on approach in respect of this issue. Those in charge of the institutions to which I refer can engage in uttering quite positive rhetoric and supply the relevant statistics for the benefit of the Oireachtas committees. However, ordinary people continue to suffer as a result of those institutions' actions. I have first-hand experience of this matter, not just as a result of what I hear at my clinics but also from my work as an auctioneer and as someone who knows a little about the property market.

Trying to increase competition in the banking sector is a laudable aspiration. We support the Minister in this regard because it could give rise to additional and less costly options for people. Has the Government sought to contact banks in China or the larger Indian banks in order to discover whether they might have an interest in entering the Irish market? We could do worse than initiate such contact in order to establish whether any possibilities exist in this regard.

I am of the view that there is a need to establish a bank similar to the old Industrial Credit Corporation, ICC, in order that we might support risk takers in industry. Ultimately, it is the latter, and SMEs, upon whom we depend most to create employment. The overriding criterion being used at present in respect of the drawing down of credit - we could have benefited from this during the boom years - is prohibitive in nature and is not designed to support the kind of entrepreneurial ideas and spirit which are necessary in order to underpin some of the good work that has already been done in creating employment.

We support what is being done in respect of Greece and it is good that the Greeks will get the relevant money back.

However, I would like to repeat a question I have asked on many occasions in this House: what is in it for the people here? Regardless of the establishment of the banking inquiry, many people think it is right that Fianna Fáil is being savaged, and that is fine. When people look back in a calmer atmosphere 50 years from now, without any of this political stuff coming into it, they will see that Europe was not up the curve, that the first skirmish in the global financial meltdown happened on Irish soil and that the people of Ireland took one in the shoulder while the European authorities were getting up the curve. We have had no payback for that.

On the morning in question - I know this because the late Brian Lenihan told me personally - it was intended that bondholders would be burned, but that was not allowed. That was not determined by ourselves here, but rather by our European masters. The German, French and other banks had to be paid. The euro was saved that day. It could have started a chain reaction that would have had a disastrous effect on the entire banking system of Europe. That did not happen. Ireland has got no payback for that. We are the poster boys for austerity. People say "Look how well Ireland can do it". Everyone else is expected to do it because Ireland can do it.

As I have said, the macro picture is beginning to come right but the micro picture is very different. The people of Ireland are entitled to payback. The retroactive recapitalisation of the banks is one thing, but have we made the moves that have been made by Greece? If we were to get back the profits on interest, in terms of coupons and that, I think it could be worth up to €500 million a year. I am glad Senator Paul Coghlan finds it amusing.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.