Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Senator Wilson has raised an issue which is of importance not only to Sport Ireland, but to society in general. If it is not recognised, I would argue that it might reflect poorly on the Government. At a time when mortgage arrears, negative equity and personal debt issues are affecting every parish and GAA club and their members, people are endeavouring to survive. Many very good people are struggling to remain in their homes or to hold on to investment properties they purchased during the boom as a result of the banking fiasco. It would be wrong and disingenuous to exclude such people from appointment to any State board.

I know for a fact that this particular criteria does not apply in respect of appointment to all State boards, including State boards whose legislative remit passed through this House in the past 24 months, one of which makes decisions about companies and the level of grants they receive. A period of reflection is required. On the one hand, the Government is encouraging the banks to do deals with mortgage holders and those who find themselves in negative equity while, on the other, it is saying that anybody who does such a deal will be excluded from playing an active role in decision-making. That is very wrong and it would send out a very dangerous message. It is not possible to square a round hole. There are sporting clubs up and down this country, many of them in my own constituency, that are currently trying to do deals with banks. Some of the people involved in those organisations who could play a key role in this area and whose names, if mentioned in this Chamber today, would ring of national sporting significance would be ruled out. There is a need for calm. We need to take a step back.

As far as I am aware, the Companies Act 1963 does not stipulate that to be a director of a company a person must meet these criteria. We should be encouraging individuals to do deals with creditors, particularly financial institutions. We should not be discouraging them from doing so. I am not attacking the Minister of State, Deputy Ring, because I know this provision was probably drafted by another Department. If this provision remains unchanged, however, a person who would like to put himself or herself forward for this position but is currently trying to do a deal with a creditor in relation to the retention of his or her family home or business could not be considered for appointment to the board. That is wrong.

The board will comprise 13 members, whose terms of office will be between three and five years. One of the members is required to have wide experience and be competent in financial matters and others need to have experience in legal matters. Many of those with experience in financial matters may have gained much of that experience from dealings on their own behalf or on behalf of others with financial institutions in respect of debt write-down. I appreciate the position in which the Minister of State finds himself. However, I believe he needs to reflect further on this. If this provision goes unchanged, it will send out the wrong message, particularly in light of the Government's encouragement of banks to engage in burden sharing or debt write-downs in relation to mortgage arrears.

Let us look at this from another angle. Much of the financial crisis in this country arose because of a lack of regulation by the banks. I accept that the Minister of State, Deputy Ring, and Fine Gael were not in government at the time.The burden of responsibility for the provision of free and easy money lies with the banks. It has been proven through various documents that the economists and financial brains available to the banks at the time were even better and sharper than those available to the Department of Finance. Why were they not allowed, facilitated or encouraged to share some of the debt burden in all of those investments, including family homes and investment properties?

The point I am making is that if we were to exclude people, we would send out the wrong message. I commend my colleague, Senator Wilson, for raising this important issue, which extends much more widely than this legislation. Maybe we should have that debate separately. If we proceed with this legislation, thereby allowing this condition to be placed, we will send out the wrong message. Senator Wilson raised the constitutional parameters. There are other issues as we come at it from a moral point of view, or from the point of view of debt sharing.