David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and I shall first discuss some elements of his speech. He said the Single Supervisory Mechanism has determined that Permanent TSB is carrying too many non-performing loans. That is an outrage. The Single Supervisory Mechanism is an arm of the European Central Bank, which is largely responsible for the mess this country is in, and they are unelected and unaccountable. This is a democracy. One of the problems with the European Community is the fact that there is less and less democracy. These people need to be told to go to hell. They should have no control in this country. I object strenuously, as a citizen of Ireland, to their malign influence. All one needs to do is recall Mr. Trichet's illegal threat that a bomb would go off if the Irish Government did the right and decent thing, and forced us to buy up bonds following an enormous increase in their value.

Second, the Minister of State said: "It is clear, given the volume of borrowers who have refused to engage with the bank to date". How does he know that? We have no information on this matter. PTSB has not given us a breakdown. One of the real problems of this situation is that PTSB has given no information whatever. Let us have this matter out in the open. Let us have the number of people who have non-performing loans, the number of people who have refused to engage, and how much of a discount will be given to the vulture funds. Let us also have an answer to the following two questions. Why did the PTSB not engage with these people? Why did the PTSB not offer them the same discount it is giving to foreign mercenaries?

The Minister of State continued:

Under the terms of the relationship framework, the execution of loan sales does not require the Minister for Finance's consent. This is a legally binding contract that cannot be changed unilaterally. It was put in place at the insistence of the European Commission to protect competition in the marketplace.

This is further interference in the Irish situation. He further stated: "The CCMA provides that a lender may commence legal proceedings for repossession of a borrower's primary residence only where the lender has made every reasonable effort." We know bloody well the lender has not done so. We have hundreds of reports of people who have tried to contact the bank only to be met with a blank wall, and telephone calls and letters were not replied to. We know that the bank has not engaged with these people.What proof would be given that they have engaged with them? While loan sales are regrettable, the Minister for Finance is also conscious of the need for Permanent TSB to continue on the path to recovery. That is the nub of it. Here we are again after the crisis moving to rescue financial institutions at the expense of the citizens of Ireland. The Minister speaks about Permanent TSB being on the way to recovery. It is already recovering very well. What is the need for this sudden demand for acceleration in its recovery? If it is recovering, that is excellent and let it go on and let it recover. Does Permanent TSB accept any responsibility for the grotesque and financially irresponsible loans it gave out? The head of Permanent TSB, an Englishman whose name I forget, was asked whether he thought the bank was acting responsibly when it gave a €600,000 loan to a person whose income before tax was €40,000 per annum. His response was that he did not discuss individual cases. He does not discuss anything. Permanent TSB is refusing to come before an Oireachtas joint committee. This is outrageous behaviour. Who the hell are these people? The Minister has control over them.

May I say to the Minister of State, Deputy D'Arcy, and I hope he will report it to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, that the Minister can indicate very clearly that he is against the sale of these loans. That is enough to stop them in their tracks. If it does not stop them in their tracks, let him sack the board and introduce a new board, who will be more responsible.

I have already discussed the Single Supervisory Mechanism. The Minister has stated that he expects Permanent TSB to be transparent with the owners. Why would it not be transparent with the Parliament of Ireland? Why will Permanent TSB not answer any questions? I suggest that the Minister for Finance should make it very clear to the board of Permanent TSB that he does not want the sale of these assets and, second, that he demands answers and puts them on the public record, of how many people and the circumstances in which they have refused to engage with the bank. I do not believe that. How many people would refuse to engage? They say there is a court system, they are in the court system and the courts are very lenient. Have they forgotten that these are real flesh and blood human beings? Just imagine the stress of being in court, possibly not represented, and facing the massed legal brains on hire to the forces that are against them in Europe. Let us remind ourselves that vulture funds are exactly that. They are not in for the long haul. They will not provide easy arrangements. The Minister says that people have the same rights, but how could they have the same rights against an unregulated body?. The Minister has already said that the vulture funds are unregulated bodies whereas a theoretical case might be made on paper that they have the same rights, in practice they simply do not have the same rights.